<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000"><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 12:36 PM John Clark <<a href="mailto:johnkclark@gmail.com">johnkclark@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 12:06 PM William Flynn Wallace <<a href="mailto:foozler83@gmail.com" target="_blank">foozler83@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><br></div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">How did Pluto get kicked out of the planet category? </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4">As we learned more about Pluto we realized it didn't fit the examples that the other 8 planets set.</font></div></div><font color="#000000" face="comic sans ms, sans-serif"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Yes, but you could have used Pluto as the original example and asked if the other ones fit it.</span></font></div></div></div></blockquote><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><font color="#000000" face="comic sans ms, sans-serif"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"></span><br></font><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>Starting with examples is an excellent idea. You observe your example and make a list of the features of it and come up with a name for that overall list. To use your example: tree. Leaves, bark, etc. If it has those qualities it is a tree, by induction. Or you can turn it around and give examples of trees - deduction.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"></font><font size="4">All that is true especially the very first part, you always start with examples of use, the lexicographers who write the definitions know that better than anyone. Take a look at "The Professor and the Madman " by Simon Winchester, it entertainingly tells the story of the early days of the greatest dictionary of them all, The Oxford English Dictionary.</font></div></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Thanks for the book recommendation. Will buy it asap.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"></div><div style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>I fail to see how a list of qualities, or criteria, or any other word you may want to use, is anything different from a definition. </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4">By itself a definition in a dictionary just associates one ASCII sequence with another string of squiggles, if you want to make a link between one of those strings and something in the real non-squiggle world you're going to need examples.</font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Did I say I didn't like examples? Can't have science without operational definitions (concrete examples)</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"></div><div style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>And - of course you can define consciousness. Just give a list of its features and bingo - definition. </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"></font><font size="4">And the definition of consciousness is being aware, and the definition of aware is being sentient, and the definition of sentient is being conscious. And round and round it goes.</font></div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4"> <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Now you are criticizing the dictionary and I agree with you. Synonyms get us nowhere. But if you define consciousness as certain EEG patterns, then we have concrete examples you can see on a screen.</span></font></span><br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"> <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>Consciousness is no more abstract than 'tree' </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4">It's easy to point to a tree, it's harder to point to consciousness. </font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">See above - watch the screen</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>IF you tie your criteria (definition) to observable things we can agree on are objective reality. </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><font size="4">That's what you and I and everybody does, we tie consciousness in others to something we can observe, intelligent behavior. That's why we don't think our fellow humans are conscious all the time, not when they're sleeping or under anesthesia or dead. That's <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">also </span>why I find life after death to be questionable, dead people don't behave very intelligently. </font><div><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">But sometimes the best thing to do is nothing, and dead people can do that better than anyone. Generally speaking, though, I think formaldehyde is not helping them. They should try something else, even carrot juice.</span></div><div><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"></span> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>EEG readings, for instance.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4">Why do you think EEG readings have anything to do with consciousness? Because when those wave have a certain form people don't behave intelligently. </font></div></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Why are you equating consciousness with intelligent behavior? A see a lot of the former but not a lot of the latter, esp. at Walmart.</span></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"> The majority - they set the definition (criteria). Subject to change,</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4">Yes. A good lexicographer doesn't set the rules he discovers them from examples of language use.</font></div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4">B<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">ut not if you are a prescriptionist. They think words are set in meaning and should not change. 'Aggravate' always means 'worsening' to them - not just 'irritate'. I think that they lost every battle they got in.</span></font></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"></span>John K Clark</font></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
</blockquote></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>