Perhaps you were never told that reading involves comprehension of content. My argument was with Brando.
The real world Problem of causality is perhaps a flaw. It is something like Kants critique of metaphysics: there is a drive to speak of it but it can never be captured. Perhaps we must Change the Frame to Performance. I quoted something on it regarding Butler. But in history there was a practice of Performance, which wrapps the formula: A is a cause of B. This is the imaginary (Spencer Brown would love it) - so tragedy in old ancient Greece. We see something in imaginational works, and draw a conclusion to the real world. This Connection may be the real sense of the Problem of causality. And it is performative, critisizing the myth of the given.
This is a bunch of bullshit.
Humans know that off-shore earthquakes cause tidal flooding. For you to ignore the cause or pretend causes don’t exist, when you could have used the information and prevented thousands of people from dying, is irresponsible and imbecilic.
Here I was not speaking mathematically.
I was speaking of many things which we might be able to see/interpret in more than one way.
I was one of those who said that a circle actually does not have sides.
Aside from that, depending on how one looks at it, some will say a circle does not have sides and some will say that it does.
Literally speaking, it does NOT.
Arc is clinging to her ignorance and falsities, playing language games and semantics to cover up her humiliation.
You ought to be embarrassed to be so wrong.
Bury your head deeper in the sand. Tell me again how a million sided shape is not a circle. Here’s the image by the way:
Shall I move upward to a billion sides are will you admit defeat?
Will you tell me a billion-sided shape is not a circle???
You’re wrong, Arcturus.
I have told you twice. I will tell you again:
It doesn’t matter how many sides.
Why are you arguing with the very definition of the word “circle”?
Who is really playing language games at this point? The definition of “a circle” forbids ANY sides at all, regardless of how small they might be. And as stated earlier, a point is NOT a “straight side” nor even a “side”, merely an edge-point.
You argue with Brando by responding to something I wrote?
What does it matter who you argue with if you are responding to something I wrote?
The following was written by me and not by Brando:
Brando simply failed to quote me properly.
So yes, you responded to me.
I am saying this even though it’s completely irrelevant.
Even if the above was written by Brando you’d still be wrong.
Change in B “due to” or “in response to” A does mean that when A changes (in some way) that B changes (in some way.)
Let me quote myself:
And you responded to this with this:
And you’re going to tell me that you are not autistic?
Look how stupid your response is.
The first thing you say is that the statement does not mean the opposite of what it states i.e. that A changes B does not mean that B changes A.
I MEAN FOR GOD’S SAKE WHAT KIND OF ALTERNATE UNIVERSE AM I IN?
Why are you telling me this?
Did my statement somehow imply it?
Does the statement “when A changes B changes” imply that “when B changes A changes”?
SERI-FUCKING-HILARIOUS-LY?
And then you say that whether the Sun changes has nothing to do with the claim?
Really?
You are telling me that the Sun affecting the flower is not an inference from the experential data within which we can CLEARLY see that the presence of light is accompanied by growth in flowers and that the absence of light is not?
When there is light, there is growth.
When there is no light, there is no growth.
The Sun being the main source of light it’s easy to see why change in the Sun (its position in space) is likely to be accompanied by change in flowers (the rate at which they grow.)
There is no such a thing as “metaphysical force” that “acts” between the Sun and flowers.
That’s just a creative use of language.
A creative expression – poetry.
And it’s a legit expression so as long you don’t take it literally.
The problem is that you DO take it literally.
This is why I think you’re autistic.
You think that if there are two different expressions in language that they must mean two different things. Otherwise you scream “inconsistency”. No no no. You scream “LOGICAL inconsistency” as if logic has anything to do with language.
You’re a very funny guy.
There’s a very good reason you keep your comments short.
They are without any substance.
Just for the record, Arcturus and James are claiming this is not a circle:
You’re both wrong.
Here’s another example of James’ autism. He starts with WORDS instead of starting with EXPERIENTIAL DATA. He clings onto one definition – the one that is the most popular – and then proceeds to accuse everyone who deviates from that definition of playing language games. If this is not a text-book example of Autism Spectrum Disorder then I don’t know what is.
UrWrong’s definition is a legit definition. It’s not my preferrable definition – I think that definitions can be ranked based on how fundamental they are – but it is just as legit as the popular definition that involves equidistance.
I don’t think it’s the best definition either. But it’s a useful definition and mathematically sound. As a shape increases its sides, it becomes “circular” to the point where people can no longer distinguish between “sided” and “round”. At some point it is a circle.
Are these rocks round?
But, but, but, they have sides!?!?
It’s not about language games. People accept definitions and estimations pragmatically. Maybe there are gray areas. Maybe a flat rock is also round at the same time as being flat. Reality has complexity. The point is that definitions can be simplified, and so can causes. Humans can understand causes, pragmatically. If there is an offshore earthquake, and 100% of the time a tidal wave follows from that, then we can begin to accept the cause of the tidal wave is an offshore earthquake. Unless of course a meteor crashes into the ocean, or nuclear bomb is set off in the ocean, then those too cause tidal waves.
Some causes and effects are much more difficult to dispute and doubt than others. Some causes are very common. Some are very rare.
If you are going to just ignore the language definitions, then why not just say that a square has 8 sides. Or better yet, just say that ALL shapes have an infinity of sides and make the language completely useless.
You are both being liberal nihilists (a redundant phrase).
Here’s James:
Don’t Forget the philosophy of the as if (Vaihinger) - even concepts of natural science are rooted in Imagination of the as if. Nancy Cartwright wrote critical about this.
- You broke my heart, James.
- No, I didn’t. Stop playing language games with me, you liberal nihilist.
The problem with James is that he’s accusing people of violating WORDS rather than REALITY itself. In other words, he’s accusing people of deviating from the norm regardless of whether their deviation is for the better or for the worse. He didn’t say “yes, that’s one way to define circles, and a pretty decent one at that, but it is less precise than the popular definition that involves the concept of equidistance”. What he said is “you don’t agree with the way Google defines circles”. That’s all. Note that I don’t know whether UrWrong’s definition of circles is less precise than the popular definition. I didn’t do the analysis. Though it does appear to be so, given that it relies on the concept of side which represents a linear pattern of points in space, I am not sure. And even if it is less precise, I don’t know by how much, so I can’t tell whether such an imprecision is significant or insignificant.
There are many reasons why people violate established definitions. It might be because they want to find better definitions. This is what I do. I want to understand things better, in a more detailed, and thus precise, manner. Or maybe it’s because their circumstances are such that a different definition is more effective at helping them achieve their ends.
You can say that a square has 8 sides. You can also say it has an infinite number of sides. But noone does so because there is no reason to. This is different with circles.
Those who have no respect for language, have no respect for thought, which means that they have no respect for truth.
You have no respect for truth DESPITE your obsession with Google definitions. If I explained to you what circles are without resorting to the popular opinion of what they are (i.e. a set of points in a plane that are equidistant from some fixed point) you would not accept it even if my definition was superior to – more precise than – the popular one. Why? Because it is not conventional. From your point of view, tradition is something that is infallible and therefore unquestionable.
The purpose of language is to COMMUNICATE and not to THINK. Thinking and talking are two different, separate, processes. You can think without talking and you can talk without thinking. Thinking is about analyzing similarities and differences between observations in order to choose the best possible assumption regarding some unknown state of the universe. In plain terms, thinking is about making decisions. No language is necessary.
What’s so wrong with saying that circles are polygons with an infinite number of sides? Is it perhaps the fact that it is not the official definition? Seriously? You say that circles have no sides, not because it’s true, but because the official definition does not define circles in terms of sides?
You think that language precedes circles? Circles came into existence the first time we defined them? Is that how things come into existence? You define them and then they come into existence? Circles are merely words, right? Not phenomena or objects of our experience? We do not experience circles before we describe them using words? We describe them using words and then we experience them? Is that how things work?
Reality should bend to fit how you describe it using words?
Yeah, yeah, “I’m rubber. You’re glue…”
Logic is more important than language.
I claimed in this thread “as a shape increases its sides, hypothetically to infinity, it becomes a circle”.
James claimed “a circle has no sides”.
This shape has 1,000,000 sides.
So to James, by language, by his own words, the shape is not a circle.
He is wrong. And Arcturus is wrong. I could provide a shape with 1 billion sides but most here will accept my position as more reasonable by now.
Semantics, arguing over definitions, doesn’t affect the underlying logic. If you make a claim then won’t you stick by it?
Since this matter is done, let’s return to the topic of causes.
There is no point in arguing, or even speaking, to people in a foreign language to theirs.