|
Post by Fenris on Feb 26, 2014 14:19:18 GMT
Fatfist, you are the only troll on here ....
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 26, 2014 16:24:03 GMT
Here you go ...... All from Mirriam-Webster's online dictionary. ex·ist intransitive verb \ig-ˈzist\ : to have actual being : to be real : to continue to be or to live Full Definition of EXIST 1 a : to have real being whether material or spiritual <did unicorns exist> <the largest galaxy known to exist> b : to have being in a specified place or with respect to understood limitations or conditions <strange ideas existed in his mind> 2 : to continue to be <racism still exists in society> 3 a : to have life or the functions of vitality <we cannot exist without oxygen> b : to live at an inferior level or under adverse circumstances <the hungry existing from day to day> space noun, often attributive \ˈspās\ : the amount of an area, room, surface, etc., that is empty or available for use : an area that is used or available for a specific purpose : an empty area between things Full Definition of SPACE 1 : a period of time; also : its duration 2 a : a limited extent in one, two, or three dimensions : distance, area, volume b : an extent set apart or available <parking space> <floor space> c : the distance from other people or things that a person needs in order to remain comfortable <invading my personal space> 3 : one of the degrees between or above or below the lines of a musical staff — compare line 4 a : a boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction <infinite space and time> b : physical space independent of what occupies it —called also absolute space I have already given you two definitions of 'object'. con·cept noun \ˈkän-ˌsept\ : an idea of what something is or how it works Full Definition of CONCEPT 1 : something conceived in the mind : thought, notion 2 : an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances LOL you have provided multiple 'definitions' for each word... what am I supposed to choose which one YOU mean specifically? Also, each of these 'definitions' is nothing more than SYNONYMS. Exist = to be = real Space = area = room = surface Concept = something conceived = idea These do not unambiguously specify the referents of these concepts. These are only lists of other words with the same meaning. You haven't defined anything. Above all- since we are talking about what YOU mean by these terms, YOU should define them in your own words. Don't go appealing the the authority of a dictionary, you coward. Speak with your own words.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 26, 2014 18:27:08 GMT
Also, it's hilarious that you avoided a definition of OBJECT.
|
|
|
Post by Fenris on Feb 26, 2014 22:32:30 GMT
Mike: LOL you have provided multiple 'definitions' for each word... what am I supposed to choose which one YOU mean specifically?
Words have multiple meanings, you fucknut. What did you expect? I agree with ALL those definitions so YOU choose which one you have a problem with, you fuckin imbecile.
Also, each of these 'definitions' is nothing more than SYNONYMS.
Exist = to be = real
Space = area = room = surface
Concept = something conceived = idea
Apparently you don't even know what a definition is, shit for brains. Here, let me help you out:
def·i·ni·tion noun \ˌde-fə-ˈni-shən\
: an explanation of the meaning of a word, phrase, etc. : a statement that defines a word, phrase, etc.
: a statement that describes what something is
These do not unambiguously specify the referents of these concepts. These are only lists of other words with the same meaning. You haven't defined anything.
Object = that which has shape
Looks like a bunch of words describing another word to me. Looks like you have the same problem. Add to that, that your definition breaks down to Object = Object which has shape, but you are too fucking dead in the head to figure it out.
Above all- since we are talking about what YOU mean by these terms, YOU should define them in your own words. Don't go appealing the the authority of a dictionary, you coward. Speak with your own words.
Are you completely intellectually retarded? Is "object=that which has shape" YOUR definition? You are appealing to Bill's authority, you fuckin useless side of bacon.
It is obvious to me that you don't have an argument. You have to resort to this kind of insane ranting to cover up the fact that you are borrowing someone else's ideas. Ideas you don't even fucking understand. It looks like a goddam congregation of drooling hillbilly fucks in here. No-one has two fuckin brain cells to rub together. Once you boys grow some intellectual integrity, give me a call. Otherwise, go fuckin play with yourselves. I don't have time for this kindergarten shit.
Out.
|
|
|
Post by fatfist on Feb 26, 2014 22:48:54 GMT
Ha ha....you tell 'em, Andre! I'm actually rooting for you here
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 26, 2014 23:16:18 GMT
"Words have multiple meanings, you fucknut. What did you expect? I agree with ALL those definitions so YOU choose which one you have a problem with, you fuckin imbecile."
No, a word must have a clear and unambiguous meanings within a specific context in order for communication to be possible. A word can take on different meanings in different contexts but we aren't talking about every possible context- we are talking specifically about PHYSICS. In the context of physics, your key terms must have a SINGLE unambiguous meaning in order for communication to even be possible. Otherwise we are left to GUESS at what you mean exactly.
"Looks like a bunch of words describing another word to me."
A definition specifies the conceptual relations invoked by the term. Your Webster's nonsense definitions haven't done that. They have done nothing but present SYNONYMOUS terms. They have 'defined' the term with synonyms which have the SAME meaning, rather than explaining the meaning of the term itself.
"Looks like you have the same problem."
Object: that which has shape does not suffer the same problem because SHAPE and OBJECT are not synonymous. Shape is a specific quality, and object is what is being qualified. They are not synonymous.
"Add to that, that your definition breaks down to Object = Object which has shape"
I have already explained to you that "that" is a purely referential term and is not synonymous with 'object'. You're the only idiot who has ever come up with this retarded bullshit, so I'll give you some credit for that. You're a very special and creative retard.
" Is "object=that which has shape" YOUR definition? You are appealing to Bill's authority, you fuckin useless side of bacon."
Bill formulated it, but it is MY definition because that's what I mean PERSONALLY when I say "object" and I can defend the definition from clowns like you with my own arguments. Not once have I appealed to Bill's "authority" in defense of this definition.
Fenris: "It is obvious to me that I don't have an argument. I have to resort to this kind of insane ranting to cover up the fact that you are borrowing someone else's ideas. Ideas I don't even fucking understand. It looks like a goddam congregation of drooling hillbilly fucks in my house. No-one in my family has two fuckin brain cells to rub together. Once I grow some intellectual integrity, I'll give you a call. Otherwise, I'll go fuckin play with myself. I should get back to my kindergarten shit."
I agree! Adios, Fenris!
|
|
|
Post by fatfist on Feb 27, 2014 1:50:04 GMT
My initial prediction came to fruition. Femtard Andre did in fact copy/paste the EXACT SAME refuted arguments & definitions he posted in my object hub article over 2 years ago
I love it when my articles induce mental illness to clueless apes....Ha! The comedy and fits of rage were sweet. Hope more boneheads like Andre come here for their psychotherapy and our entertainment.
|
|
|
Post by Fenris on Feb 27, 2014 3:57:51 GMT
Mike: No, a word must have a clear and unambiguous meanings within a specific context in order for communication to be possible. A word can take on different meanings in different contexts but we aren't talking about every possible context- we are talking specifically about PHYSICS. In the context of physics, your key terms must have a SINGLE unambiguous meaning in order for communication to even be possible. Otherwise we are left to GUESS at what you mean exactly.
So, you know the context. Why can't you pick out the appropriate context from the list of contexts in the dictionary entry and respond to that? Does someone have to hold your hand when you take a piss too? Also, Monkeyfuck didn't specify any context in his 'challenge'.
Neither of us are talking about objects as defined in physics. Bill's definition is also not accepted in physics.
Do you need to go look up the exact definition of each word you read on this forum to know EXACTLY what it means?
A definition specifies the conceptual relations invoked by the term. Your Webster's nonsense definitions haven't done that. They have done nothing but present SYNONYMOUS terms. They have 'defined' the term with synonyms which have the SAME meaning, rather than explaining the meaning of the term itself.
You idiot. You need to use words to explain words. Even you have to do that. Your definition does the same bloody thing. Maybe you need to define each term you use in your definition, simply to be consistent. Please define 'that', 'which', 'has' and 'shape' unambiguously, you smug fuck.
Object: that which has shape does not suffer the same problem because SHAPE and OBJECT are not synonymous. Shape is a specific quality, and object is what is being qualified. They are not synonymous.
Look at this definition of 'Space'
a : a boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction <infinite space and time>
Please point out the synonyms.
Mike: I have already explained to you that "that" is a purely referential term and is not synonymous with 'object'. You're the only idiot who has ever come up with this retarded bullshit, so I'll give you some credit for that. You're a very special and creative retard.
Explained? You made a statement. One that is true, but irrelevant, as I have PROVEN, by pointing out that 'thing' fulfills the exact same function as 'that'. Yet, according to you 'thing' is a synonym for 'object' but 'that' isn't. Now, why would you choose to ignore this obvious inconsistency in your own reasoning? Because what you are proposing is a BELIEF. Meaning, your statement cannot be proven by using reason. All you do is make statements. Statements that you BELIEVE is self-evidently true, WITHOUT offering any arguments.
Mike: Bill formulated it, but it is MY definition because that's what I mean PERSONALLY when I say "object" and I can defend the definition from clowns like you with my own arguments. Not once have I appealed to Bill's "authority" in defense of this definition.
So, when I use the dictionary definition because that is what I mean when I say 'object', how the fuck am I appealing to authority?
Oh, I didn't include another definition of 'object' because I gave you TWO in the very first post I wrote. Fuckin retard can't even read .....
|
|
|
Post by Fenris on Feb 27, 2014 3:58:55 GMT
Fatfuck: My initial prediction came to fruition. Femtard Andre did in fact copy/paste the EXACT SAME refuted arguments & definitions he posted in my object hub article over 2 years ago
Prove it ..... you useless piece of shriveled up foreskin.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 27, 2014 17:59:32 GMT
"Why can't you pick out the appropriate context from the list of contexts in the dictionary entry and respond to that?"
It's not my job to guess at your ambiguous dictionary definitions.
"Also, Monkeyfuck didn't specify any context in his 'challenge'."
LOL this forum obviously states the context is physics. You must be autistic if you honestly can't figure that out.
"Neither of us are talking about objects as defined in physics. Bill's definition is also not accepted in physics."
Nobody cares what's accepted by who. Gaede's definition is used consistently in rational physics. You must be referring to the bullshit mathemagical religions because that's the only place it's not accepted.
"Do you need to go look up the exact definition of each word you read on this forum to know EXACTLY what it means?"
We only need definitions of KEY terms, you autistic fuck.
"You idiot. You need to use words to explain words. Even you have to do that. Your definition does the same bloody thing."
Using words to explain words is not the same as using SYNONYMS to define a term. Your definitions were basically like saying, "A shout is a yell which is a scream."
"Maybe you need to define each term you use in your definition, simply to be consistent. Please define 'that', 'which', 'has' and 'shape' unambiguously, you smug fuck."
Most of the words you listed are not KEY terms which make or break the argument. Shape is a term that has already been defined in this read. You have poor reading comprehension, clearly.
"Look at this definition of 'Space'
a : a boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction <infinite space and time>
Please point out the synonyms."
Space is boundless, I agree with that. But then to say space is a 'three dimensional extent' then contradicts the definition of boundless. The three dimensions are length, width, and height. If space has a dimensional extent, then it has length, width, and height which is necessarily BOUNDED. This definition is self-contradictory.
"One that is true, but irrelevant, as I have PROVEN, by pointing out that 'thing' fulfills the exact same function as 'that'."
And 'thing' can take on an ambiguous meaning in common speech, which is what you're doing. "Thing" can be either a synonym for object OR it can be used as a catch-all reference term which no clear meaning. You are changing the meaning of it to this referencing term and simultaneously claiming it is still synonymous with 'object'. This is the fallacy of equivocation. I think you're being intentionally deceptive here.
"So, when I use the dictionary definition because that is what I mean when I say 'object', how the fuck am I appealing to authority?
Oh, I didn't include another definition of 'object' because I gave you TWO in the very first post I wrote. Fuckin retard can't even read ..... "
I know you can't read, Fenris, because if you could you would've noticed that these bullshit dictionary definitions have been refuted multiple times already. They suffer from the SAME synonymy that your other definitions did. Object = physical = body = matter. ALL SYNONYMS and no specification of what ANY of those terms means.
|
|
|
Post by Fenris on Feb 28, 2014 13:17:18 GMT
Mike, you are completely missing the point here. I have never claimed that the standard definition of object, or any of the other terms Monkeymind mentioned, is better than the one you've got. My point is that they are equally ambiguous. YOU claim that your definition is clearer. I am arguing that it doesn't solve any of the problems 'my' definitions exhibit, according to your view. You, and Bill, claim to have 'fixed' the problem with the standard definitions. I am arguing that you haven't. You have simply moved the problem itself into obscurity by focusing on a quality (shape) that is as reliant on FIRST recognizing that something is an object, as any of the other qualities you argue against. I bet you can't tell me HOW you recognize that something is an object.
My problem is with the arguments you use to prove that your definition is better. Those arguments are pathetic and does not accomplish what you set out to do, at all. You completely ignore the problem by trying to define it out of existence. Unfortunately you have to keep inventing other definitions for things like, 'concept', 'exist' and 'space' that become more and more insane.
Try this very simple experiment. Go stand in front of the mirror. Look at your image in the mirror. Now look at your body. Which is the object? The image in the mirror looks exactly the same as the body that is being reflected in the mirror, but you don't think there is actually another you in the mirror, do you? Yet, according to your definition, that image of you is also an object, since it has shape.
Because of your definition, you are reverting back to the intelligence level of a bird, or a dog. Neither of those animals knows that the image in the mirror is not an actual object. I can see how Monkeymind can find that appealing. It solves a massive mystery for him, but how does anyone else not see this idiocy for what it is? It boggles the mind.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Mar 1, 2014 3:32:46 GMT
"Try this very simple experiment. Go stand in front of the mirror. Look at your image in the mirror. Now look at your body. Which is the object?" - Fenris
They are both objects, except one exists & one in imaginary- an illusion of the mind. Do not confuse objecthood with existence. Our minds IMAGINE an object because of the way the mirror reflects light, but this object is nothing more than a projection of our brains. We IMAGINE there is some boundary there, but really it's just motion.
Similarly, we imagine there is an oasis in the desert because of the way light reflects off layers of air. The air exists... the mirage is an imaginary object.
Not all objects exist.
|
|
|
Post by Fenris on Mar 1, 2014 5:16:36 GMT
"Try this very simple experiment. Go stand in front of the mirror. Look at your image in the mirror. Now look at your body. Which is the object?" - Fenris They are both objects, except one exists & one in imaginary- an illusion of the mind. Do not confuse objecthood with existence. Our minds IMAGINE an object because of the way the mirror reflects light, but this object is nothing more than a projection of our brains. We IMAGINE there is some boundary there, but really it's just motion. Similarly, we imagine there is an oasis in the desert because of the way light reflects off layers of air. The air exists... the mirage is an imaginary object. Not all objects exist. Objecthood is intricately involved with existence, in my view. You say our minds imagine an object when we look in the mirror. Here is a question though: Since the image in your mind depends on the light that hits your eye, how can it tell the difference between an image and an object? Is there something intrinsically different between the light coming from an image in the mirror and the light coming from the actual object? The point being that both the image and the actual object are 'projections of our brains'. Back to my question then: How do you know whether what you are looking at is an image or an object? If both have shape, how do you tell the difference?
|
|
|
Post by Advocate on Mar 1, 2014 14:01:43 GMT
Smash the mirror!
|
|
|
Post by nicholashesed on Mar 1, 2014 14:11:00 GMT
Lol!!! Or just use the brain your mother worked so hard to develop in her womb. For the love of God, this stuff isn't rocket science. All one has to do is resolve the ontology of the referent, and commit to a rational definition of exist.
|
|