Elements of Style in English
in [Lisp]
|
From: Bob Felts on 14 May 2010 14:54 Tim Bradshaw <tfb(a)tfeb.org> wrote: > On 2010-05-14 16:04:22 +0100, Bob Felts said: > > > Man doesn't have free will. > > I think when someone states that you know they've lost, because it's > just trivial that this is not a claim that can ever be proven or > disproven. On the other hand, it's interesting that Raffael and I come to the same conclusion from two totally different paths. In any case, did you read the link(s) that Raffael provided? Too, I'm very much interested in the proof of your claim that it can't be proven or disproven. How do you know this?
From: Tim Bradshaw on 14 May 2010 15:41 On 2010-05-14 19:52:02 +0100, Bob Felts said: > Sorry, but to what does "this" refer? The underlying reality. > > The point that I was making is that we perceive that there is something > external to us; we can't know if our perceptions are congruent to what > is really out there. I was agreeing with you! If we can't know what something is like, then clearly natural languages can't encode that information (or, if they do, we can't know they do), because if they did (and we knew they did) then we could know what the thing was like.
From: Tim Bradshaw on 14 May 2010 15:55 On 2010-05-14 19:54:44 +0100, Bob Felts said: > Too, I'm very much interested in the proof of your claim that it can't > be proven or disproven. How do you know this? I think because it is not possible to construct an experiment which will prove or disprove the hypothesis, which means that it must remain just that: a hypothesis. Sorry, I should not have got drawn into this: I don't enjoy philosophical debates, and on usenet they tend to deteriorate rapidly into name-calling (for instance on my part in the article you responded to, for which I apologise). So I'll not respond further, not because I'm walking off in a huff but because I'll just end up spending too much time and calling people names. --tim
From: Bob Felts on 14 May 2010 16:23 Tim Bradshaw <tfb(a)tfeb.org> wrote: > On 2010-05-14 19:54:44 +0100, Bob Felts said: > > > Too, I'm very much interested in the proof of your claim that it can't > > be proven or disproven. How do you know this? > > I think because it is not possible to construct an experiment which > will prove or disprove the hypothesis, which means that it must remain > just that: a hypothesis. Well, ok, but _why_ do you think it isn't possible to construct such an experiment? After all, if we're just meat machines, we ought to be able to reverse engineer our hardware and software. From there, we ought to be able to determine what it is that makes us "tick". Now, maybe you hold to the view that man's "software" cannot be reverse engineered -- perhaps because it originates from the "mind of God", and is thus (?) beyond our reach -- so an experiment might not be possible. The characters in a book can't directly affect the author, so maybe it's because of this that the question isn't answerable. Reality can be a tricky thing. ;-) > > Sorry, I should not have got drawn into this: I don't enjoy > philosophical debates, and on usenet they tend to deteriorate rapidly > into name-calling (for instance on my part in the article you responded > to, for which I apologise). So I'll not respond further, not because > I'm walking off in a huff but because I'll just end up spending too > much time and calling people names. > Fair enough. I like these kinds of discusions; but far be it from me to force someone into an unpleasant exchange of ideas.
From: R H Draney on 14 May 2010 20:41
Vend filted: > >On 14 Mag, 11:34, p...(a)informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) >wrote: >> Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp(a)retep> writes: >> > Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote: >> >> >> Water droplets are falling. =A0In the action described by "it rains", = >there >> >> is clearly a 'ontological' subject: the water droplets. >> >> > Consider expressions like "it is raining cats and dogs" or "it was >> > raining soup". It's clear that the things that are falling from the sky >> > are the objects of the verb, not the subjects. >> >> Yes, that's my point. =A0There is a thing that falls. =A0There is no acti= >on >> without something that does this action, AFAIK. > >But in the phrase "it is raining", which could be considered an >abbreviation of "it is raining water", "water" is the object of the >verb, not the subject. In fact, the phrase doesn't really have a >subject, "it" is merely a syntatic placeholder. > >However, in Italian that phrase becomes "piove", which could be >considered an abbreviation of "piove acqua", where "acqua" (water) is >the subject of "piove" (rains). > >In other languages (Hindi?) the same phrase becomes something >equivalent to "rain is happening". Two monks were arguing about a flag...one said "the flag is moving".... The other said "the wind is moving".... The sixth patriarch happened to be passing by...he told them "not the wind, not the flag; mind is moving"....r -- "Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle |