|
Post by jean on Jan 28, 2014 13:02:52 GMT 1
Begorrah, you're a fool, woman. Look, your entry for the bird is a separate meaning to the word, not a derivation! A six-year old could tell you that, for crissakes! I see you somehow missed snipe, v.
Etymology: < snipe n. 1. Don't you understand how meanings derive from each other?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 28, 2014 13:08:34 GMT 1
You're the one denying what you said there... I'm not denying what I said, I'm denying that what I said is what you claim I said. It is for you to back up that claim. You're denying that you argued that the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis was valid - the "weak" version, at any rate? He doesn't need to have been "there" for most of it, wherever you think that might be. We'll ask him if he ever remembers me complaining that you misquote, that by deleting parts of quotes you change their original meaning for your own dialectical purposes - shall we? What do you think he'll say? Seeing as I've had to put this complaint to you many times, I'll be amazed if all those occasions passed him by, won't you?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 28, 2014 13:10:57 GMT 1
Begorrah, you're a fool, woman. Look, your entry for the bird is a separate meaning to the word, not a derivation! A six-year old could tell you that, for crissakes! I see you somehow missed snipe, v.
Etymology: < snipe n. 1. Don't you understand how meanings derive from each other? I didn't miss it, I just don't believe it. I think it's another of your adulterations. And if on the other hand this is merely a misprint, that's all it is, as anyone with an ounce of sense could tell you. But I don't believe the OED gives the primary meaning of snipe as the bird, sorry.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 28, 2014 13:12:34 GMT 1
The meaning of snipe, the bird, derives from a completely different source to the meaning of the verb, to snipe, as any dictionary will tell you. I haven't looked, but I don't need to.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jan 28, 2014 13:13:38 GMT 1
It is for you to back up that claim. You're denying that you argued that the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis was valid - the "weak" version, at any rate? The 'weak' version, yes. Which you regard as a mere commonplace, so why are you arguing with me about it? Of course he'll remember you complaining. That doesn't mean your complaints were justified. Interestingly, the partial quote distorting my meaning is exactly what you did yourself earlier this morning.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jan 28, 2014 13:18:28 GMT 1
The meaning of snipe, the bird, derives from a completely different source to the meaning of the verb, to snipe, as any dictionary will tell you. I haven't looked, but I don't need to.Oh I think you do. You started by telling me that I'd misread the dictionary - when you realised that my quote from the OED said exactly what I said it did, you were reduced to claiming that I'd adulterated my quote - or that there'd been a misprint! A poor show, I'd say.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 28, 2014 13:19:00 GMT 1
For a few decades, until Hume blew it totally out of the water. Who's we? The "mind" is the functioning brain, as far as I and most other people are concerned. So your claim that this is a "self-evident a priori truth" is false.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 28, 2014 13:24:47 GMT 1
The meaning of snipe, the bird, derives from a completely different source to the meaning of the verb, to snipe, as any dictionary will tell you. I haven't looked, but I don't need to.Oh I think you do. No I don't. I'd lay a hundred quid that the verb to snipe - both to criticise and to take shots at - derives from the same source as snip: to make short sharp cuts. This has no relevance to the bird, snipe, which derives from another root altogether. Obviously. I think you have adulterated your quote. What's the bit in the middle you've left out? I agree. But completely typical of your tactics.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jan 28, 2014 13:50:56 GMT 1
I think you have adulterated your quote. What's the bit in the middle you've left out? I'd like to have been able to link to the page, but the OED site won't let you do that - you have to have a subscription to consult it online. I can do it by virtue of my local authority library service subscribing. You might find you can do the same, if you log in with your library card number. You can do it here: www.oed.com/loginpageI have not adulterated my quote in any way though, except to miss out the illustrative examples. They have nothing to do with the etymology of the word, which I include in my quote. Here's a link to some definitions from other dictionaries: www.thefreedictionary.com/snipeAs you see, no source is given for any meaning of the verb other than the noun referring to the bird. When do I get my £100?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Jan 28, 2014 15:11:32 GMT 1
If you concede that "I" exists then you have to show how you arrived at this conclusion. Can you do that?
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Jan 28, 2014 15:35:19 GMT 1
There is nothing complex at all about the statement: "I think, therefore I am" because of its pure tautological truth. On my planet, tautologies are commutative. Things that think certainly exist, but not everything that exists, thinks. So it isn't a tautology. If you want to use the logician's definition of tautology, one part of the statement must be universally true. "Cogito" is not necessarily so, so "sum" must be. Therefore existence does not require a sentient observer. For once, philosophy accords with science, even though the connection is only an accident of misappropriated language.
|
|
|
Post by jenns25 on Jan 28, 2014 17:12:44 GMT 1
Hi, Accuracy is very important. We can measure the productivity of work by doing the job accurately. In learning new language accuracy is a must. I have just started my French lesson and this site learnperfectfrench.com/ had helped me a lot to do my job accurately. The site has demo video and free trial course meant for people who want to learn new language like French.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Jan 28, 2014 17:31:56 GMT 1
No - obviously. Not in Descartes' sense, at any rate, or any dualist sense. Answer, please: This is your argument: All we know is what we perceive. There is another sort of "reality" that exists apart from our perceptions, but this "noumenal" reality is in principle forever beyond our perceptions, "phenomenal reality", and we can never know anything about it. You have by definition no possible evidence for the existence of this "noumenal reality", but you say you don't need any, because it's an a priori argument, derived purely from logical reasoning.
Right? Would you agree that's a fair summary of your position? It's what you've said over and over - this is what you still stand by?
Now, this is my counter-argument: We are able to know about a reality that exists outside of our perceptions because that reality consists of energetic forms in spatio-temporal relations and our perceptual apparatus accurately registers, preserves, and conveys those spatio-temporal relations to our awareness, in our brains. It does so because our awareness and our brains are themselves energetic forms in spatio-temporal relations, and accurate correspondence is thereby possible. More than possible - the fact that such accurate correspondence can and does occur, both within outside reality and within our brains, is adequately proven by all our experience: including, for just one example out of an infinity of them, of your successful ability to recognise a photo of a phone kiosk, transmitted to you through phone lines and fibre-optic cables and em radiation and electronic illumination of screen pixels and retinal cell activation and neorchemical impulse transmission. You recognise a phone kiosk - something, like everything else in the world that you experience, your analysis of this phenomena-noumena metephysic is totally unable to account for.
Now - please answer my counter-argument. As it stands, it has completely broken the logical circle of your argument. What we experience as phenomena are not necessarily totally divorced and utterly different in nature to the outside reality independently existent of them. Okay? Now, it's up to you to explain why this is wrong, and why your tautological argument should be taken seriously, when I've just shown that it's false. "We are able to know about a reality that exists outside of our perceptions..." Once again, this a self-contradictory statement because that which we are unable to perceive is beyond our awareness and it is not that we are able to "know" directly about reality that exists outside of our perceptions but that there exists a reality outside of our perceptions, by logical deduction. If you can't grasp this idea perhaps it's time to move on.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Jan 28, 2014 17:50:04 GMT 1
There is nothing complex at all about the statement: "I think, therefore I am" because of its pure tautological truth. On my planet, tautologies are commutative. Things that think certainly exist, but not everything that exists, thinks. So it isn't a tautology. If you want to use the logician's definition of tautology, one part of the statement must be universally true. "Cogito" is not necessarily so, so "sum" must be. Therefore existence does not require a sentient observer. For once, philosophy accords with science, even though the connection is only an accident of misappropriated language. "I am" requires a sentient observer because "I am" is a concept and concepts require minds. If what you say about existence not requiring a sentient observer is true then how does "I am" come about?; how does it come to exist? If I could not observe myself how could the idea of "I" be tenable? Actually, I'm not sure I agree with your statement that existence in general does not require a sentient observer because things like rocks, people, planets, atoms, even concepts themselves require concepts to exist and concepts are generated by minds. Unless, of course, you are suggesting that concepts have the ability to independently exist in the absence of thinking beings.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Jan 28, 2014 17:54:44 GMT 1
I have started a new discussion "I think therefore I am" in the non-scientific friendly chat room.
|
|