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.
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.
Saying a circle has infinite sides simply means that no matter how many times its circumference is divided up there will be no sides
You could divide it up as many times as were mathematically or logically or physically possible and there would be none. You could
divide it up an infinite number of times and there would still be none. Which is exactly the same as saying it has no sides. Because
if it did then it could not be a circle as it is defined. Which is that every point on the circumference is equidistant from the centre
It depends on what it refers to. If it refers to education in general, then the non-logical part of language can (but mostly does not) be more important than the logical part of language. The cohesion of the language (mostly called “text”) is always important.
Semantics is a subdiscipline of the disciplines (1) semiotics, (2) linguistics, (3) logic, (4) mathematics. It can only deal with meanings and definitions. Each linguistic lexem (word) that can be find in a encyclopedia, a dictionary, a lexicon can only be described by its meaning and defintion, perhaps supported by other language forms (see: (1), (2), (3), (4) and the chart below), but not by more.
So if you want to know what, for example, a “circle” is, then you have to refer to (a) the meaning and definition of the word “circle” and to (b) the history of its meaning and definition, which means that they can change over time. But the result of this change (caused e.g. by an experiment) is always either a new or a renewed kind of meaning and definition.
And mathematics is a subset of logic, logic is a subset of linguistics, linguistics is a subset of semiotics, and they all are language.
The smaller the subset is or the more properly, coherently, consistently the subsets and sets are connected, the more exact is the information.
Don’t worry about it. If you need my support, you have it.
You are the most intelligent person on this forum.
And not only on this forum, you’re the most intelligent person on Earth.
And not only on Earth, you’re the most intelligent Homo Sapian of all times.
There never was a Homo Sapian of your caliber.
Your are simply too good to interact with any of us here.
That’s why you keep your comments short.
You are right and everyone else is wrong.
You are humble and everyone else is arrogant.
There is simply no point discussing anything with people who are wrong and arrogant.
You’re a misunderstood genius.
You are way ahead of your time.
You have no choice but to wait – to be patient – and ignore all of the detractors.
Deep down you know that one day you will be the face of humanity.
Well thanks. I’m glad to see that even though denied it, at least you can vaguely recognize it.
It is a fact that most of us already know what the word “circle” means i.e. what phenomenon it refers to. And if someone does not then we can help them understand what we mean by the word “circle” by using non-verbal communication. Remember that non-verbal communication precedes – it is more fundamental than – verbal communication. All you need is a finger with which you can point at things that are associated with the word and things that are NOT associated with the word. This is one of the simplest ways to learn the meaning of words. There are even simpler approaches than that and they involve the use of some kind of force. Violence is a form of communication. You can also use verbal communication in order to explain what your words mean but this involves describing what you mean by your words using some other words – those that are familiar to the other side. This helps you get your point across quicker but the risk that you will be misunderstood is higher.
I am pretty sure that all participants in this threads share the same exact understanding of what circles are. There is thus no need to explain what they are. The disagreement is regarding MATHEMATICAL or LOGICAL MODELS of circles. For example, James models circles in terms of radius whereas UrWrong models them in terms of sides. What they are doing is they are taking one object (circles) and bringing them into relation with another object (radius, sides.) James says that UrWrong’s approach is wrong because it is not how Google describes circles. If that’s not autistic then I don’t know what is.
I think that people who place too much emphasis on language are people who are too socially dependent.
Very feminine.
Google’s definition is thousands of years old, not in dispute, and taught throughout the world. The version that involves sides, is, as far as I know, taught no where. It is Urwrong’s fallacious invention.
Such words are not up for you or he to redefine and expect to be respected for it.
Yes, but “most of us”, obviously doesn’t include you or Urwrong.
You over credit yourself.