No, I asked where 'this' stops. I never said 'building'. — noAxioms
Where does the building stop? — noAxioms
Still, purpose is defined by the humans that find utility in the 'object'. The topic is about an object in absence of such ideals such as purpose. — noAxioms
I don't think a beam of energy say 'knows' anything about human purpose. — noAxioms
The word invokes a convention, and the convention typically includes all those parts, but how about the piles or the utility hookups? Where does the building stop? Does it include the furniture and people? That question was asked in the OP where I explore the concept of what you weigh, and exactly when that weight changes. — noAxioms
But in the absence of language, how does anything 'know' that 'building' is the object of interest? — noAxioms
That example was meant to demonstrate the opposite. If I reach out and touch the bark and ask how large 'this' is, am I talking about the twig, branch, tree, forest, or something else — noAxioms
If there was a physical convention, there'd be an answer to that. There seemingly isn't. — noAxioms
Does “convention” equal “A way in which something is usually done in accordance with an established pattern.”? — ucarr
Are “convention” and “utility” the antecedents for “things.”? — ucarr
Are you saying ‘object’ is a non-physical construction of the mind? — ucarr
Is ‘object’ the antecedent of ‘it.’? — ucarr
Does infinity actually mean that there is always one more, or does it just mean the possibility of it? — Sir2u
Full Democracies
…
Austria
Malta
Spain — Wheatley
and @Metaphysician Undercover @Sir2uPlato doesn't accept the existence of Zeno's dogs. — ssu
Zeno could have said, "let me know when you get to the dog that eats the most, and the dog that eats the least", and Plato could have said "OK". Problem resolved. Instead, Zeno said you are "forgetting" these two dogs. But Plato is not "forgetting" them, he has not yet found them, so there is no need for them to have ever entered his mind. — Metaphysician Undercover
And then, if you think that there's just two Zeno's dogs, how about then all the transcendental dogs between them. — ssu
Laws, legistlation & jurisprudence correspond to "social control". — 180 Proof
In all moral issues it's the ultimate goal of each side to enforce themselves on a legal or political level. — Judaka
Moral principles
As far as I can see, all formal moral philosophies, and certainly any philosophy that specifies how other people should behave, is not moral at all, or even really a philosophy. It’s a program of social control - coercive rules a society establishes to manage disruptive or inconvenient behavior — T Clark
includes reorienting AI development towards ethical goals, educating and empowering individuals, promoting holistic economic models, and advocating for supportive policies — Pantagruel
Zeno is right. Not by reason of counting. Rather, by rule #2, the one that eats "the most" and the one that eats "the least" are conceptual quantities that differ from any other quantities already given. — L'éléphant
Then come up with a definition of 'connected' that doesn't make everything into one connected thing. — noAxioms
But everything is connected, or nothing is. I mean, everything interacts via fields of force (as jkop put it). What is a connection if not that? — noAxioms
I thought you said Midas touched a twig, not a forest. Why do you think the entire forest becomes golden? By this logic, wouldn't literally everything on Earth become golden when a twig is touched. I don't understand your reasoning here. — NotAristotle
Midas touches a twig. What turns to gold? The twig, branch, tree, forest? The word 'tree' was never conveyed. The intent might not even be there. The touch may have been unintended. — noAxioms
What then is an uninteresting phenomena? — jkop
Is love real? The United States of America? One of my dreams? — T Clark
It's traditional music of Smyrne, an old city of Turkey (hence the music) part of which has been inhabited by Greeks. — Alkis Piskas
A partir del momento que podemos decir "El multiverso no es real", "real" no tiene solamente sentido en contexto metafísico, tiene sentido en contexto físico también. — Lionino
El uso de las palabras, de la lengua, no es tan misterioso ni complejo. Palabras se refieren a cosas en la mente de las personas, a menudo dos personas no piensan la misma cosa con la misma palabra; — Lionino
¿Pero "ir allá de lo básico" no se aplicaría también a todas las palabras que son dichas "ambiguas"? Ese argumento me parece ser un chivo expiatorio. — Lionino
Sí, como un poema cualquiera. ¿Se supone que es un trabalenguas o algo así? — Lionino
No he leído "Sense and Sensibilia", o cualquiera obra de Austin, talvez puedas enseñarme; — Lionino
Si queremos decir que una palabra "no es ambigua", en el contexto de Austin, ¿qué significa exactamente? — Lionino
Porque, bien, un interlocutor A puede decir que "Papá Noel es real" y "Naves en el Triángulo de las Bermudas desaparecen", y mucha gente cuestionará "¿Pero real en qué sentido? ¿Es basado en una persona real, o es real como una idea, o real en el sentido ficticio?" y "¿Desaparecen cómo? ¿Desintegran espontáneamente? ¿O hunden en el mar?". Por tanto esa es una confusión que puede surgir — Lionino
Lo leí normalmente. — Lionino
Article 1:149 of the Dutch civil code mentions that a marriage can be dissolved on a number of grounds. These grounds are summed up limitatively which means that only those grounds have legal force. The eradication of a registry is not among them. Therefore I can only conclude that under Dutch law the marriage is not dissolved. — Tobias
Interestingly perhaps under Dutch law we know the figure of the 'natural obligation'. That is an obligation that cannot be enforced but is still there. — Tobias
The most prominent example of it is when a thief becomes the owner of a certain good due to the statute of limitation. Since he became owner the original owner cannot revindicate his or her property. Yet, the thief/owner is still under a natural obligation to return the good to the person he/ she stole it from. — Tobias
Say a nuclear weapon wipes out all the registries, then there is no evidence of my marriage anymore, but I am still married. I still have the legal obligation to care for my partner. There is just no evidence for the marriage and if I walk away from my obligation it cannot be enforced by a court. That though does not make the obligation somehow disappear, or the marriage somehow annulled. — Tobias
Wow! What to drink? — frank
But its rare that anyone in any stage of their healthy life thinks they should die. — Philosophim
Just playing devil's advocate with some more 'scary' thoughts... — jasonm