From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Thu Oct 31 2002 - 00:28:08 MST
Michael Dickey writes
>>> Is it not reasonable to agree on definitions before we attempt to make
>>> arguments that involve such words?
to which John Clark responded
>> No I don't believe it is , definitions are vastly overrated, examples are
>> much more important. You've "defined" death in such an odd way that it's
>> entirely possible that John Clark is already "dead" thus I have little use
>> for your word and don't care if I'm "alive" or "dead". Do you really have a
>> problem with the simple idea that if you think you have survived then you
>> have?"
>
> You do not believe that definitions are important when arguing? What if
> we were arguing if farmouzabala was vitchilimi? Would you not want a
> definition of both farmouzagbala and vitchilimi? Well we are arguing
> if a copy is you, shouldn't we also define 'copy' and 'you' to come to
> a meaningful resolution?
This is a difficult question. I have found few definite guides
as to when definitions are important. One is when the number of
semantic links is large and they relate on a more emotional level.
The classic example is "abortion is murder". One has to argue
over what is meant by "murder" or allow the anti-abortionists
to score a winning touchdown.
Now I say that you can't just go define words like 'copy' and
'you' and it is preposterous to even try. Suppose that you
succeeded. What would then arise is that both parties would
go right on using the words the way that they'd always used
them. We aren't logic machines, you know.
Ya hafta use a whole lot of common words to get your meaning
across. Words are like ball-bearings on a skating rink:
to get anywhere to you have to tread carefully and be
especially wary of putting too much weight on any one
of them.
Attempting a rigid, totally logic-driven analysis is a complete
exercise in futility. You and John, for example, both know
quite well the kinds of scenarios "copies" occur in. I suggest
you refer to those scenarios. Although you know what "you" means
in some contexts, e.g., this sentence, that term can be ambiguous;
that's why the terms "original" and "duplicate" are used---it
refers to mechanical processes well understood in terms of
effect.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:54 MST