What I'm trying to say is that the concept of one could be something that does not exist in reality, but only in our conception of reality. So, we can very easily refer to "one flower" because our entire mental system is based on the concept of numbers. But "one flower" defined in purely physical terms is a ridiculous notion. There is no way to measure or define "one flower".
Sure there is.
Define "one".
Define "flower".
Then you'll know what "one flower" means.
People like to trot out this argument as "does 'one flower' include the stem, the roots, what kind of flower?"
To which one need simply reply, "Define your god damned terms."
But you're going to be hitting some tricky fucking territory. Does one flower describe this flower at one point in time? What about particles of oxygen that are leaving the flower, or carbon dioxide that is entering it, do these constitute part of the flower? At which point across the opening of the stigmata do those particles constitute a part of the flower?
You're going to run into a huge amount of arbitrariness, if you can even manage to finish a definition at all (and this will get very hard once we start describing sub-atomic particles).
My guess is that "one flower" will function as a definition if we are atomistic, or recognize that eventually we get to indivisible parts. Absent that, then we are very much stuck with an infinite regress of vagueness.
At the macroscopic level we could bypass the vagueness by positing a wealth of stipulation onto the phrase "one flower".
But the best solution is probably to expand the linguistic articulation.
Ultimately, I think we need a 1-1 correspondence of language to atomistic particle. Then there would be no vagueness.
That won't do it, though! A flower is not only an arrangement of atoms! It's an arrangement of energy, and has a distinct history, it's a continuation of an unbroken line of other organisms back to the very first living things. You have to understand, it's nearly impossible to describe a single flower without describing it's relationship to the entire rest of the universe. And then, you are describing but one individual flower, not some sort of category that multiple "flowers" could fit into.
But yeah on saying that jumping from physics to evolution depends on how you make the jump. All science is wielded terribly in philosophical arguments though.... Depending on what you count as "science".
Actually, I find that philosophy is wielded terribly in scientific arguments.
today in my astrobiology class we talked about extremophiles on earth!
crazy shit!
stuff that lives in radiation 500x greater than would kill people! stuff that lives at absurd temperatures!
and interestingly, since we now know that 99.9% of bacteria and archea are not culturable when we sent the viking thing to mars 30 years ago, well, they didnt want to contaminate mars so they cleaned the shit out of the lander and tested it by swabbing the side and seeing if things in petri dishes grew
so we might have actually contaminated the surface of mars with some microbial organisms >.> oops
and then we were the creation myth
Yeah, this'll bite us in the ass in a few thousand millennia.
I guess they need more space. Hynes was at capactiy with60K attendees.
They're moving to the boston convention center, down near the World Trade Center in the harbor district. It's not as central as Hynes, which is too bad, but it's not like Boston is a giant city where you can't walk pretty much everywhere.
It's pretty close to South Station in one direction and Southie in the other.
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited March 2010
New Diet Fad Sweeping the Nation!
Induced Comas Are The New EASY Weight-Loss Plan Guaranteed To Work! Lose Inches While Time Flies! Our Medically Certified Staff Will Take Care Of Your Body While You Dream Away In Bliss!
today in my astrobiology class we talked about extremophiles on earth!
crazy shit!
stuff that lives in radiation 500x greater than would kill people! stuff that lives at absurd temperatures!
and interestingly, since we now know that 99.9% of bacteria and archea are not culturable when we sent the viking thing to mars 30 years ago, well, they didnt want to contaminate mars so they cleaned the shit out of the lander and tested it by swabbing the side and seeing if things in petri dishes grew
so we might have actually contaminated the surface of mars with some microbial organisms >.> oops
and then we were the creation myth
I love the bacteria which lives in radioactive substances and turns it into basically inert compounds.
A flower is inextricable from the entire rest of the universe, all parts of the universe are deeply intertwined. This is the entire basis of my argument that there are not "entities" there is one "entity".
But yeah on saying that jumping from physics to evolution depends on how you make the jump. All science is wielded terribly in philosophical arguments though.... Depending on what you count as "science".
Actually, I find that philosophy is wielded terribly in scientific arguments.
It goes both ways
just like your mother
I agree with Feral here.
I also agree with Arch.
Johannen on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Induced Comas Are The New EASY Weight-Loss Plan Guaranteed To Work! Lose Inches While Time Flies! Our Medically Certified Staff Will Take Care Of Your Body While You Dream Away In Bliss!
My guess is that "one flower" will function as a definition if we are atomistic, or recognize that eventually we get to indivisible parts. Absent that, then we are very much stuck with an infinite regress of vagueness.
Why is an infinite regress of vagueness unacceptable?
Because if we maintain that X is vague then we are maintaining that there is an X which exhibits the quality of vagueness. Which means that there is an X.
Which means that there being an X is not vague, but rather that X exhibits the quality of vagueness.
Which means that there cannot be an infinite regress, because there is X, as a discrete particular which exhibits vaguenss.
If you maintain that there is an infinite regress of vagueness, and that X is vague, then you cannot maintain that there is an X which is vague, but rather that there is just vagueness, absent a discrete particular which exhibits vagueness.
Except that means that there is "vagueness" as itself a discrete particular. Which means there is no infinite regress, given that there is "vagueness" and if the regress were infinite there could not be a vagueness which was itself discrete.
if there is a "redness," is there a "slightly darker redness" and a "burnt sienna" and a universal for every single imaginable discrete concept? what about particulars which we imagine but never see, like Podly's unicorn? is this realm one of infinite potentiality?
There is a universal for every shared actual quality.
what is the nature of the relationship between a red apple and this form of "redness"? what is relationship between those two things and the human mind - does it connect them itself, or simply perceive an already extant relationship?
The redness is instantiated in the red apple. The mind recognizes the relation.
how can you justify their existence without cause or fundament? if they benefit from brute existence, can other things do so, like perhaps a physical universe and its rules?
Not sure I understand this.
how does instantiation occur? what is the nature of that process?
what is the nature of our perception, for that matter - are we perceiving the apple, or only a complex web of instantiations - appleness, redness, roundness, shininess, fruitness, etc?
as for the last bit, what I meant was that you seem to believe that existence is derived from or produced by or a reflection of these transcendent forms. you seem to have reached this conclusion by ascertaining that there must be some kind of more fundamental realm of reality that causes what we see, or provides a foundation upon which it can rest - how can we say that an apple is red, how can that discrete concept be named and utilized, if it does not in fact exist, and how else can it exist but in an incorporeal realm, etc.
my question is therefore: if the nature of reality as we perceive or experience it leads you to conclude that there is a realm of forms, how then does the nature of the realm of forms not lead you to conclude that there must be an even more fundamental level of reality, and indeed, an infinite regress of such realities?
My guess is that "one flower" will function as a definition if we are atomistic, or recognize that eventually we get to indivisible parts. Absent that, then we are very much stuck with an infinite regress of vagueness.
Why is an infinite regress of vagueness unacceptable?
Because if we maintain that X is vague then we are maintaining that there is an X which exhibits the quality of vagueness. Which means that there is an X.
Which means that there being an X is not vague, but rather that X exhibits the quality of vagueness.
Which means that there cannot be an infinite regress, because there is X, as a discrete particular which exhibits vaguenss.
If you maintain that there is an infinite regress of vagueness, and that X is vague, then you cannot maintain that there is an X which is vague, but rather that there is just vagueness, absent a discrete particular which exhibits vagueness.
Except that means that there is "vagueness" as itself a discrete particular. Which means there is no infinite regress, given that there is "vagueness" and if the regress were infinite there could not be a vagueness which was itself discrete.
a bloo a bloo a bloo
What do you mean by discrete?
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I like Yuengling OK. I drink it when I'm east coasting.
It's okay aside from pretty much sucking.
Eh, I think it's kind of a novelty thing. Like whoa drinking east coast beer and watching the toilets run the other way! You guys are crazy over there.
Oh and speaking of beer Pilsners are pretty good I think.
Posts
That won't do it, though! A flower is not only an arrangement of atoms! It's an arrangement of energy, and has a distinct history, it's a continuation of an unbroken line of other organisms back to the very first living things. You have to understand, it's nearly impossible to describe a single flower without describing it's relationship to the entire rest of the universe. And then, you are describing but one individual flower, not some sort of category that multiple "flowers" could fit into.
It goes both ways
just like your mother
well
you could have literally died on the 2 train
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20001321-504083.html
or vagueness, for that matter.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yeah, this'll bite us in the ass in a few thousand millennia.
Oh shit you did not just insult my beer taste
I guess they need more space. Hynes was at capactiy with60K attendees.
They're moving to the boston convention center, down near the World Trade Center in the harbor district. It's not as central as Hynes, which is too bad, but it's not like Boston is a giant city where you can't walk pretty much everywhere.
It's pretty close to South Station in one direction and Southie in the other.
thems fightin words
Yuengling is the lowest beer either of us will stoop to
Uncanny Magazine!
The Mad Writers Union
Induced Comas Are The New EASY Weight-Loss Plan Guaranteed To Work! Lose Inches While Time Flies! Our Medically Certified Staff Will Take Care Of Your Body While You Dream Away In Bliss!
by the scruff of his neck if at all possible
I love the bacteria which lives in radioactive substances and turns it into basically inert compounds.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090908193444.htm
did he ask for something with peach schnapps in it?
he asked for something with peach schnapps in it didn't he?
Yeah will he drinks Mikes Hard lemonade like a man.
pleasepaypreacher.net
And again today.
Fuck yeah.
what is wrong with peach schnapps?
I agree with Feral here.
I also agree with Arch.
we were at the liquor store and i opened one of the fridge doors and he just gave me this derisive, cutting look
like by offering up that particular six pack for consideration i was asking him to fellate a homeless person or something
he is pretty serious about his brewskis let me tell you
this was a good [chat]
Kinokuniya books a like 6:30ish?
It's okay aside from pretty much sucking.
no he wanted pete schnapps
it's what he calls a bj
I have to work saturday
he's usually pretty easy to bribe, though
Uncanny Magazine!
The Mad Writers Union
Because if we maintain that X is vague then we are maintaining that there is an X which exhibits the quality of vagueness. Which means that there is an X.
Which means that there being an X is not vague, but rather that X exhibits the quality of vagueness.
Which means that there cannot be an infinite regress, because there is X, as a discrete particular which exhibits vaguenss.
If you maintain that there is an infinite regress of vagueness, and that X is vague, then you cannot maintain that there is an X which is vague, but rather that there is just vagueness, absent a discrete particular which exhibits vagueness.
Except that means that there is "vagueness" as itself a discrete particular. Which means there is no infinite regress, given that there is "vagueness" and if the regress were infinite there could not be a vagueness which was itself discrete.
a bloo a bloo a bloo
For those playing at home. "Is Tav Still Irish?"
Mark this one a no.
pleasepaypreacher.net
look dude i don't even know if OE qualifies as beer
it's drinkable from a good tap
in bottles it is le ass
how does instantiation occur? what is the nature of that process?
what is the nature of our perception, for that matter - are we perceiving the apple, or only a complex web of instantiations - appleness, redness, roundness, shininess, fruitness, etc?
as for the last bit, what I meant was that you seem to believe that existence is derived from or produced by or a reflection of these transcendent forms. you seem to have reached this conclusion by ascertaining that there must be some kind of more fundamental realm of reality that causes what we see, or provides a foundation upon which it can rest - how can we say that an apple is red, how can that discrete concept be named and utilized, if it does not in fact exist, and how else can it exist but in an incorporeal realm, etc.
my question is therefore: if the nature of reality as we perceive or experience it leads you to conclude that there is a realm of forms, how then does the nature of the realm of forms not lead you to conclude that there must be an even more fundamental level of reality, and indeed, an infinite regress of such realities?
What do you mean by discrete?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
oh jeez, goddamn
Eh, I think it's kind of a novelty thing. Like whoa drinking east coast beer and watching the toilets run the other way! You guys are crazy over there.
Oh and speaking of beer Pilsners are pretty good I think.
Seriously. I hear so many folks say
"OH MAN I WISH I COULD GET YUENGLING IN OHIO"
and I just stare at them. Unsure if there is some lost connection that I failed to make.
Old english malt liquor? Damn old man you are pulling out all the insults, thats a 7/11 brew.
pleasepaypreacher.net
that's only after he's gotten started with a few zimas
The bubbles tickle his nose tee hee!
we mixed a birthday drink, called the That's What She Said
peach schnapps, dark rum, gold tequila, and some kind of seltzer
edit: to be fair we were pretty heavy handed with the dark rum, though I suppose I'm not making the case for him
Uncanny Magazine!
The Mad Writers Union