Synthetic expressions are expressions of language that also require sense data from the sense organs. — PL Olcott

"A triangle in Euclidean space has its angle sum up 180º degrees" is a synthetic expression that does not require sense data.

It seems you are conflating the synthetic analytic distinction with a priopri a posteriori one.

The vote distribution makes me suspect people did not understand the question. They would be more willing to go into the machine IF they kept their past memories and knew they were living a lie? Odd.

On the other hand, what guarantee do we have that we are not plugged in in a machine right now?

On one side, even if we are, going to yet another machine adds another layer of lies we are living in — but does it make any difference how many layers?

On the other side, why not replace this imperfect, often catastrophic reality for an idealised one?

Etymonline is not a reliable resource but the etymology posted this time is basically correct. Regardless of that, by pasting that text, it feels like you ignored half of my text before, or at least did not understand it — admittedly, I am not always easy to understand.

French is a Latin language. — Arne

P1: Arabic is a Semitic language.
P2: The English word 'lemon' comes from Arabic līmūn.
C: The English word lemon comes from Proto-Semitic!

Where is the fallacy?

Only an idiot would write or believe petty claims without any evidence to support them like the one quoted here. — 180 Proof

Less than a month of activity on this forum seeing your "contributions" provides enough evidence to turn the claim into an axiom, troll.

It's an extension of freedom of the will. If you are in a war zone, your freedom is severely hampered. — Manuel

The discussion is about control over mental operations, not about the electromagnetic force inhibiting your freedom to phase through walls or a valley hampering your freedom to bike to the neighbouring city. Social/physical freedom are not the same as metaphysical freedom. If you wanna make the opposite point however, I am open to hearing it. Otherwise, you are completely missing the point of the thread to take the opportunity to talk about modern politics.

But, I do take this to very basic levels. Suppose you don't have free will. Ok. What's the point is trying to let people know about this? — Manuel

The utility or meaning of something bears no importance on its truth.

One day the server where this website's data is hosted will come apart and your comment will be lost —at best 10 people will ever read your comment. What is the point of making comments?

The words "sensation" and "sense" in English come from the Latin "sensus" (= sensation, feeling, meaning). So, we are travelling back to Latin grounds that you like to talk about. :smile: — Alkis Piskas

You see, the English word sensation (sen-say-shon) comes from the Proto-Indo-European *snt-ie/o-, cognate with the Lithuanian sintéti and Old Irish sét.

The word sensation does not come from Latin sensus. It comes from French sensation, as does half of English, we see that in the suffix '-tion', which is particularly French, not Latin or Spanish.

Singling out Latin in that process from PIE *snt-ie/o- to modern English sensation is pretending that English has Roman roots which it has 0 of. Particularly, I am yet to see a single culture that is more opposite to Romanness than English, I see more similarities even with Ethiopians (who are Orthodox and Axum an important trade partner of Romans).

English is a halfbreed of Northwest Germanic (Frisian-like) with Nordic contamination and Old French (often Norman) with Celtic substrate. Latin does not come into the equation just like Arabic and German (hochdeutsch) do not.

I personally couldn't think you are a ... Thatplace...what? :grin: — Alkis Piskas

The country I am currently located in.

I am aware of the mechanistic biology of his time — I would partially blame his Christian background for that.

What I meant is calling someone a Fascist for saying animals are not alive is weird, as Fascists were more environmentalist than any Capitalist or Socialist of their day (and most of our day).

Cause Descartes was himself trash — Vaskane

Stop using the Cartesian plane right now!, you don't want to be a Nazi, do you?

A bit of a fascist in a sense, as Deleuze would argue. — Vaskane

Weird, when fascists were known to be quite the environmentalists.

What is the way? — YiRu Li

Human instrumentality

Well, OK, we can also look at the Latin root of the word "sensation", but in our case, we are dealing with a technical term or with a word as applied to a specific context. — Alkis Piskas

The word applied technically has to come first from common language, as we know sensation is not a scientifically coined term. We have two options: either take the meaning as it is in common language (useless for English as "sensation" can mean anything — semantic vagueness), or define precisely the word — semantic neologism.

And if the word is not precisely defined in a given field, might as well throw it out or finally define it.

But my point is more that Latins knows what sensatione- means because they know what sentir(e) means. How could they not? Sentir(e) literally means "feel", and being used so often, they would know when it applies and when it does not. English does not have that privilege in the case of "sensation", but it pretty much does in the case of "friendly" (analogy).

Greek words are so well "rooted" that you can understand their meaning by just their etymology. — Alkis Piskas

I would say not only the etymology, but also the relation to other words (analogy, which ultimately comes from etymology), and also the sound the word makes, and perhaps even other factors I have not thought of.

OBS: analogy here means as here. TLDR: analogy of female of waiter being waitress, like female of emperor being empress (French words).

Are you also Greek or of Greek origin? — Alkis Piskas

I am not but I have Greek people close to me in my life, big fan of tzatziki. The Atlantis is just a placeholder as I don't live in my native country and I would rather not have people think I am actually Thatplacestanian.

Where is your evidence for this? And was the mechanism by which the language mixing occurred? — Baden

El árabe es una lengua originaria de Arabia. Esta lengua ha contribuido con más de 1.043 palabras al vocabulario español. Los préstamos del árabe se encuentran en diversos campos, especialmente en la ciencia, la construcción y la alimentación.

There are approximately 10,000 words which stem from Arabic.
Meanwhile in English:
There are approximately 10,000 words which stem from Arabic.

The query «"del ár" site:dle.rae.es» gives us 1280 results on Google. Suggesting the main Spanish dictionary registers less than 1300 words.

Using a higher estimate of 3000 Arabic words, and that Spanish has 93'000 words on RAE. That would amount to 3,2% of Spanish's vocabulary being Arabic.

The Oxford dictionary registers some 273'000 words. Using the 10 thousand figure, we get 3,6%.

So not only does English have more Arabic words in absolute numbers, it also has more in percentage depending on the parameters we choose.

And was the mechanism by which the language mixing occurred? — Baden

Through other South European languages.

The case for the Arabic influence on Spanish is set out in the following wiki article. — Baden

Sorry, but I do not read articles written by extremely unqualified jobless people.

Dude, The Emirate of Granada was just that, as is shown in the following picture. I hope you are trolling me because nobody with sense believes that a Muslim state has ever occupied England. The Emirate of Granada was the last and only independent Muslim state in Western Europe. — javi2541997

I genuinely believe I am talking to a wall now, because you are able to speak correctly but yet what you say has no connection to what is previously said, several times now.

I said Arabic speakers were closer to England than Russians ever were. Arabs went all the way up to South Italy and South France. Russians (except for WW2) never went very far west. If you plug it into Google maps, you will see the comparison between the distances and that my statement is correct. It was not even relevant to the central point anyway.

Just post some English words which roots are Arabic — javi2541997

Sugar.

In Spain we have hundreds... Málaga; Almería; Alicante; Jaén; Córdoba; Almaguer; Almagro; Almanzora; Madrid; Alcalá, etc. — javi2541997

Toponym is not an important element of one's language.

Once folks have understood that premise, we have to quote the next evidence: — javi2541997

What you quoted is no evidence. The language spoken in the Al-Andalus was Mozarabic along with Arabic by the rulers. Arabic words enter Castillian not directly but through Mozarabic, which was replaced/absorbed by the North Iberian Latin languages. Fine, but so what?

I am not even gonna bother with the rest because there is so much rubbish on this thread. You people have no clue what you are talking about.

The claim: English has more Arabic in it than Spanish does — put the keffiyeh on, English speakers!
The proof: the numbers provided above.

I would say there are historical (Earth or chronological) time and phenomenological time — Janus

Yes, basically. What I meant to be specific was that he is older in historical time (1000 years or so), but younger in chronological time (because he has not lived for as long as his daughter in his experience) — or as you call it durational time —, and also younger in biological age because his body has aged a certain amount (equal to chronological time in this case).

In any case, the example given of a mother younger than her daughter does not fit the bill.

unless we count possibility as being simply what we can coherently imagine. — Janus

That would be it. Possible worlds are every state of affairs that could have been, t.i., not logically contradictory.

we don't know what the laws of metaphysics are, unless, again, they are what we can imagine without contradiction — Janus

The laws of metaphysics do not follow necessarily from logical possibility.

It's logically possible that abstract objects exist, but their existence is metaphysically impossible if physicalism is true.

In general one would judge as metaphysically possible, anything that is consistent with one's prior ontological commitments. If contradicted by ontological commitments, you'd judge it metaphysically impossible.

If you prefer to judge metaphysical possibility from a perspective that's devoid of ontological commitments, then metaphysical possibility = broadly logical possibility. — Relativist

Good post. I agree. I would also raise that if physicalism is true, metaphysical possibility = physical possibility.

Have you... heard of Plato? — Pneumenon

Yep, studied him a bit. Where does he say ideas are mind-independent?

This is not related to what you pointed out previously. — javi2541997

Because your reply is not related to what I said previously too.

You stated that English is more Arabic than Spanish, something that is quite impossible because the Arab expansion in the Middle Ages never got into England — javi2541997

This is a complete non-sequitur, hence my reply.

Edit: Original post had "You stated that English has more Arabic words than Spanish" (which is 100% true), that is what I am replying to.

(Whilst they were here for seven centuries) — javi2541997

Seven centuries? Many more! They are in Spain and in England to this day. I am sure there was at least one Arab in these two countries at any given moment since then.

Even if English had Russian words, it would sound more reasonable than to have Arabian vocabulary because of the historical and geographical evidence. — javi2541997

Not at all, Arabic speakers were much closer to England than Russians.

Please think before you give another nonsense answer.

How is it possible if the Nasrid dynasty never went beyond the Iberian Peninsula? — javi2541997

How is it possible that English has Russian words if Kievan Rus never went West of the Rhine?

Spanish is such a mixture of arabian, germanic and latin, very hard to get a grasp on. — Ansiktsburk

This is patently false and does not suffice any historical analysis. Spanish is Latin, language of the Romans, nothing that it did after that was not done before. English is more Arabic even than Spanish.

For an English speaker, the (b) part might not come up to mind as English has more than a million words. Finnish, my own mother tongue, has roughly about 400 000 words. — ssu

English does not have even close to 1 million words, it is far less than that. And the largest Finnish dictionary is greater than the largest English dictionary.

Every country in the world you think of, you should be adding 20-30% of them into the number of English speakers. — Corvus

That is absurd as well. This 20-30% is not even true in most European countries. Only the West has English as lingua franca, the rest does not.
And being that those stats are often self-reported, whatever number you get is most likely inflated anyway.

Well English has more total words in it's vocabulary than any other language. — LuckyR

False. English loses to Tamil, Portuguese, Finish, Korean, Swedish, Italian, and others. English's vocabulary is tiny in fact compared to some of the top listers.

In addition learning English as a second language increases compensation more than learning any other language. — LuckyR

If you are in China, learning Mandarin is a much better idea. In Central Asia or Eastern Europe, Russian is. And if you are in some random country in Africa, maybe it is a good idea to learn French.

Any further reading on that? As is, it seems there is some elaboration missing for this argument to pass.

Compare the people in Gaza vs. most people in Copenhagen. Then tell me there is no difference. — Manuel

People in Gaza have the freedom to ride APCs and wield AKs. Do the Danish have that?

But what difference would being correct make to being incorrect? Presumably, regardless of what is or isn't the case, you wouldn't kill babies. Or would you convert to baby killing if you'd found it to be moral? In the unlikely case you'd say yes: then it's your belief that matters, not the fact-of-the-matter -- what difference does the fact-of-the-matter make? — Michael

I say none because for me the ontology of morality is a field that arises from overcomplication of otherwise straightforward things. What is morality but the rules we develop as a society? That is the definition of morality even. "Abstract object which sprawl from the universals of good and evil" (or whatever) is not the definition.

There is a possible world in which the rules we develop as a society includes "kill babies" (Hello, Incas and Canaanites!), and that would be then moral.

The fact that morality is relative does not make it worthless. I would argue in fact that the relativity of morals makes it even more important in the sociological sense.

Speaking for yourself, I presume? — wonderer1

Still upset that you made a clown of yourself in the other thread?

Therefore, we can't just use the term "sensation" or "feeling" without specifying what we exactly we mean by that. Isn't that right? Well, this is what actually happens in these discussions. And of course, the conversation between two interlocutors goes in circles and reaches a dead end. — Alkis Piskas

The issue is that English is a rootless language, a halfbreed of Dutch and French.

In any other language I do not see the issue of "But what do you mean by X?" popping up nearly as often as in English. People in a given country (mostly) went to the same school system, belong to the same culture, so why so much trouble with communication?

An English speaker may use the word "microbe" but when asked to define it will fumble (inb4 you go look it up to reply to me). Does that include viruses? Spores? What about tartigrades or ant eggs? A Greek person however will have no issues telling you what micróvio means.

If you go very basic, English speakers will have a decently clear idea of what "befriend" means, and then what "friendly" means, even if the latter does not imply the concept of friend. But being that English's vocabulary beyond the bare basics consists of the complete mutilation of French — which is already a bit of a mutilation of Latin — nobody knows what they are even saying when they say "civilisation", "conceive", "peace".

To address the quoted segment, any Latin person will tell you what sensatione- means, even if it is not easy to explain, just like its root verb sentir(e). While Anglos and Anglas and Anglxs think that man can mean woman and woman can mean man. How can you trust this language to do philosophy and rhetoric if it can't even define two of the most basic concepts of human society?

Isn't "Real existents, but only in our minds" included in the definition of "idea"? I don't remember ever seeing idea being thought of as something that exists mind-independent or something that does not exist at all. Or are we talking about things such as numbers and greenness?

How about philosophy of badminton next? Or philosophy of fighting?

Philosophy is not the love of wisdom, philosophy is metaphysics, epistemology, logic, ethics, and aeshetics.

This is false — mcdoodle

:nerd: :nerd: :nerd: "Eeeerm- I just fact checked this on Cheeseburgersville's grandmas Facebook group and actually there is this one little article by the PolyAmoryNews talking about microplastics"
It does not matter. Microplastics are not nearly talked about as much as the climate. That is what I said, and it is a fact.

but it's a popular misconception that he said or even implied that the underwater events would happen 'by 2000 — mcdoodle

I did not say that. You are just "debunking" an opinion that was never stated.

The maps are not real afaik, they are just illustrative of how scales may be shifted in order to inspire alarmism.

See here, where temperatures close to 0 are a nice bright green while temperatures under 30 display a hellish red.


Source https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/11/02/election-day-2020-forecast-favorable-weather-likely-across-the-nation

Sorry, I don't accept "epicclimatenews" as a source for someone "burnishing their scientific credentials", which is not something that happens because science is not a clergy, there is no one to be burn at a stake.

But keep pulling your hair for something out of your control because the news told you the world is ending. It is hilarious.

As an observation, everytime you mention Trump or Biden I skip over to the next paragraph. I do not care about your largely irrelevant "country".

Why do you think microplastics are killing us? — frank

Because having plastic in our system is not healthy? Microplastics are painting an apocalyptic future more than any +1 degree Celsius climate shift. The climate can be fixed, microplastics cannot ever.

I don't really have time for an argument any more, this world is going to collapse, it is already collapsing, and no orange clown is going to save us. The great god Science has pronounced our doom, and your faith or lack of faith changes nothing. — unenlightened

I have to admit that you are into too many layers of irony for me to understand. Props where it is due.

That our care for the environment is lacking is pretty much self-evident, though personally I would put the emphasis elsewhere (microplastics, pesticides, etc. - pollution, in short). — Tzeentch

That much is evident, the dumb cattle would rather not have kids and buy electric cars (which make no difference) while millionaires stay and will stay on their private jets burning diesel. But when we comes to things that are killing us in real time, such as microplastics and hormones in food, they stay really quiet because it is not a topic covered by the BBC or New York Times. I say good, let artificial selection take its course.

The United Nations said in 1989 that the Earth would be underwater if we did not stop climate change by 2000, and yet the Netherlands (negative altitude) will still be afloat in 2024.

Also relevant: https://www.uah.edu/news/news/paper-on-climate-model-s-warming-bias-co-authored-by-dr-christy-is-top-download



When there is no Ukraine, Israel, vaccine, or Iran hysteria to keep the people distracted from the issues of their country, you can always go back to climate hysteria.

it is backwards in terms of sentence structure and adjective compared to others for a start — I like sushi

What do you mean it is backwards?

At any rate, I think you are trying to arrive at Ithkuil: https://www.ithkuil.net/

the science — Mikie

The Science™!



As a point of curiosity, do you know the difference between a superheated vapour and a saturated vapour?

It is too late. You must go into the cage and eat the bugs to save the planet.

On another note, Taylor Swift is coming to New Zealand next month.

Might as well be barking like a dog if you're going to speak something other than English to me. — Hanover

Might as well be barking at all times.

Do we native English speakers use these common phrases because French better conveys the meaning, or are we just accustomed to it by this point? — Daniel Duffy

Both. We must be reminded that France was the language of culture in England for a few centuries, and even after that faded away, French would later soon the lingua franca of Europe and then of many corners of the world until the 20th century.

The Schopenhauer1 of 1999 lacked all the experiences of the Schopenhauer1 of 2023. This is why I previously asked: "Are you the same person (same identity) today, than "you" were yesterday (or 20 years ago)?"

[...]

[...]

Are people different? We've noted that monozygotic twins start out with the same genetic makeup, so that set of DNA can't be sufficient. Is it even necessary? No, because our DNA mutates over time, so the DNA you have today is not identical to the DNA "you" had as a zygote or at birth. So you can't even say a specific set of DNA is a necessary condition. — Relativist

Fully agree with everything said here.



I think this post from a related thread is very relevant.

Take the movie Interstellar for example (spoilers), at the end, the main character returns to Earth just as he had left, but his daughter is on her deathbed.

If we say there are three types of time — historical time, chronological time, and biological time —, the main character is younger than his daugher in all but historical time.

then to say that the child could be older than the mother would involve a logical contradiction — Janus

Agreed. And if the daughter becomes older than the mother due to some time paradox or related, I would say it is now both metaphysically and physically possible.

What do you think of the wiki? — hypericin

I think it should be avoided as much as a rabbid racoon or a rusty blade with tetanus.

:up:

Semiotics for Beginners - useful reference. — Wayfarer

Very useful. It should be right on the OP. In fact most of this thread would not exist had everybody read that.

I appreciate you trying to work out the example that the troll refused to elaborate (as he does every time).

I am either missing something very fundamental (and I blame my lack of sleep) in your elaboration or there is a glaring flaw. By the conception that dogs are infinite because they encompass/are an infinity of geometric points, they would be infinite, logically, metaphysically, physically already. So an infinite dog would not be metaphysically impossible because it is already physically possible by the constraints we chose.

But they are metaphysically impossible because these possible worlds don’t exist — javra

Are the definitions not confused here? Something logically possibly is something that does not entail a violation of logic, while something metaphysically possible is something that exists in a possible world, and physically possible whether it violates the known laws of physics, right? Whether that world exists is then an instantiation of the subject we are talking about, but it is apart from the question of whether something is possible or not.

In what respect is a circle or the Mandelbrot set infinite? — Joshs

Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_rw-AJqpCM
I could work out the mathetical explanation with infinite series, but I slept only 4 hours today due to workload and skipped gym, so I will leave it for another day :mask:

I do not know exactly in what way they referred to the circle being infinite, but you can depict a circle as a regular polygon with infinite many side.

The one I gave ... — 180 Proof

Me: What is an example of a person in which that [metaphysically impossible to be infinite but logically possible] applies?
Him: The example I gave
His example: an infinite person

Thank you for the contribution, 360º Proof. Go troll another thread.