Re: Misclassification of packages; "libs" and "doc" sections
Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 29, 2000 at 09:37:43PM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
> > "There is no subjective phenomena; they are illusionary."
>
> I don't have to be a philosopher (armchair or otherwise) to recognize lousy
> grammar when I see it.
>
Congratulations. Be careful about yours, because I'll be checking ;)
> "Phenomena" is plural, therefore to have proper subject/verb agreement you
> should use "are"; also, the proper term is "illusory", nor "illusionary".
>
Thanks for the correction. The sentence must read
"There are no subjective phenomena; they are illusionary."
The meaning remains a bit vague as I've previously warned.
Brevity has made it more preferable.
As you can see the agreement had indeed been satisfied following the
semicolon. I've accidentally forgotten changing "is" to "are", because I
decided to use the plural afterwards. It was first "phenomenon", but
then I changed it because it didn't elicit the generality of the
argument. The argument (which I'm not saying whether I agree with it)
applies to subjective phenomena such as consciousness and innate
feelings (for instance hunger). It claims that all of these alleged
"subjective phenomena" are in fact accountable as "objective". This
is a rather new argument, at least the strong form of it, so you
may not be very comfortable with it. This discussion belongs, as
far as I know, to philosophy of mind rather than linguistics or
semiotics. And I don't have a good background on the semiotics field,
although I've read one of Eco's more academic books. I've also had
the chance to deal with some semiotics where there is overlap with
the subjects I've studied. As far as I can tell, semiotics looks at
these matters from a broader perspective so it should be less relevant.
OTOH, your vocabulary might not be as exact as you might think it is,
which is demonstrated by the following WordNet entries:
illusionary
adj : marked by or producing illusion; "illusionary stage effects"
[syn: {illusional}]
illusory
adj : based on or having the nature of an illusion; "illusive
hopes of of finding a better job";
The sense of "illusionary" here is what I meant. Because according
to the argument those phenomena do exist, but we conceive of them
in a wrong way (we think they are "subjective"). I hope this will
prevent any further confusion with my post.
> Also, you need to cancel your subscription to _Semiotics Today_.
If I were subscribed to a Semiotics journal, that might be the case.
Unfortunately, I'm not. I don't think that Semiotics has much to
do with the current discussion. That is, the argument I write about
is more likely to be made by a neuroscientist perhaps. Of course
they are related, so you have really demonstrated your knowledge.
Ultimately, philosophy of language, philosophy of mind, cognitive
science, and semiotics are all very interested in subjects like the
problem of reference. I'm personally fascinated by any intelligible
discussion about the problem of reference, [which is a fundamental but
terribly difficult subject] or any subject I've studied in philosophy
of mind, philosophy of language and cognitive science. That's why
I'd been discussing with Thomas because he has an excellent command
of his knowledge and arguments, and we can communicate to a large
extent although we have different backgrounds and seem to hold quite
different views on some basic matters.
Branden, may I humbly request something? Either, stay on the subject
(as it is, "off-topic") and communicate your opinion on the radical
argument which I've tried to refer to. Or please deal with something
else, because this is not funny. Your last statement is a clear _insult_,
and this is not at all a technical matter to discuss violently, so
LJBF okay? :(
Regards,
PS: I will also suggest Thomas Bushnell to reply to me in private if
he may, because it has been a conversation with only two participants.
--
Eray (exa) Ozkural
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
e-mail: erayo@cs.bilkent.edu.tr
www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo
Reply to: