You are fixating on my imprecise use of language.
Yes, it is true, in the popular use, “a kind of” relationship describes a containment relationship (i.e. subset/superset relationship) between two bivalent sets (i.e. sets with a membership that is binary: elements either belong to a set or they do not.) A category C1 is said to be “a kind of” category C2 if the definition of category C2 is a subset of the definition of category C1 (or if the set of objects belonging to the category C1 is a subset of the set of objects belonging to the category C2.) That said, cat is not a kind of dog since the definition of category dog is not a subset of the definition of category cat (e.g. cats don’t bark.) That’s as far as bivalent (i.e. true/false) logic is concerned.
But here I am talking about fuzzy logic with an open interval (0,1). A fuzzy set based on such a logic would contain ALL elements but with their degrees of membership varying between 0 and 1 (i.e. no element would be left out and no element would be fully contained.) This is a more precise way of modeling reality.
So a fuzzy set of dogs will also contain cats (and everything else in the world) but the degree of membership of these elements would be very very low. Now, since the degree of membership of these elements is very very low, and since the kind of fuzzy sets I am talking about here are very difficult, nay, impossible, to hold in mind, we can simplify the set without losing much power by converting it to a bivalent set that does not contain cats and all other elements that have a very low degree of membership. And that’s how we arrive at the popular way of thinking that is based on two-valued logic.
So, yeah, you may as well say that I am wrong because I didn’t end this sentence with a full stop
Okay, I did, so what now? My point still remains. Replace “I did not say” with “I also said […] and that’s what I meant when I said […] not what you think I said.”
We can’t measure ANYTHING objectively, if we use the word “objective” in the strict, absolute, sense of the word.
Again, this is because, like a true platonist, you think in terms of two-valued logic: things are either objective or subjective; they are either correct or incorrect. But in reality, everything is subjective and the word “objective” merely denotes a relation between perspectives (i.e. perspectives aren’t equal, some are more objective and others are less objective), and in reality, everything is incorrect whereas the word “correct” merely denotes a relation between errors (i.e. some errors are less mistaken and other errors are more mistaken.)
So we can measure everything objectively. All you have to do is put some effort. If you have no time, and moreover, if you do not like the fact that everything can be measured objectively, you can put all the time you have in denying this fact, which isn’t really thinking, but ad-hoc rationalizing, a sort of heuristic employed by people with no time to think but who nonetheless need quick answers, even if they aren’t exactly right.
So the only thing you’re admitting here, and that’s only indirectly, is that you are ignorant of the fact that you’re confusing your ignorance and lack of time with impossibility.
It’s actually pretty good definition of simulation.
If you want me to give you a quality response, though, you will have to provide me with a counter-example. Provide me with a single example that fits the definition but is not simulation.
I know what your “position” is. There is no point in trying to remind me of it.
Your “position” is this: everything is art. That, and: you can’t rank art. Both are based on nothing but wishful thinking.
How do you know you can’t rank? This is how you know: “I don’t know how to rank, therefore, there is no rank.” That’s all. If you think there is anything more to it, you are deluding yourself.
I know. That’s what I call “fragmented” sort of thinking. You can rank some things, but you can’t rank other things lol.
It is precisely because people have different tastes that there is a rank between tastes. If there were no different tastes, then all tastes would be equal. How do you manage to confuse yourself regarding such simple matters?
People have different muscular structures but that does not mean that their muscular structures are equal. ON THE CONTRARY, it IMPLIES that they are unequal. Similarly, the fact that people have different brains IMPLIES that their brains are unequal.
Objectivity does not mean that everyone AGREES, it simply means that there are RULES THAT APPLY to everyone. For example, being tall is better than being short. That’s a rule that applies to everyone, no matter whether individuals agree or disagree with it, or whether they are tall or short. The point is that IF THEY COULD that’s what they would value, that’s what they would eventually become. A short person may convince himself that tallness is not better than shortness, say because he’s incapable of accepting his reality (i.e. that he is short and less desirable than his taller peers.) Now, of course, there are special cases that he can use in order to fuel his delusion, e.g. supertall people are disordered and they die early, ignoring the fact that such people die early not because of their tallness but because of the relation between their size and the rest of the body i.e. because their tallness is not properly coordinated with the rest of their body. That’s ad hoc rationalization: one starts with a conclusion and then seeks logic that appears to support it. Genuine thinking works the other way around: one starts with logic and then DISCOVERS the conclusion.