Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,061 Year: 5,318/9,624 Month: 343/323 Week: 187/160 Day: 4/19 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   No Witnesses
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1574 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 81 of 215 (656020)
03-15-2012 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Dr Adequate
03-15-2012 2:13 PM


Inconsistent with language usage. Devices like IR imagers are widely described as allowing users to see infrared, and this language is viewed as accurate by an overwhelming number of English speakers.
Sorry, you're wrong. You've mistaken yourself as the arbiter of language use. Usage is the arbiter of language use.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-15-2012 2:13 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-15-2012 7:55 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1574 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 85 of 215 (656045)
03-16-2012 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Dr Adequate
03-15-2012 7:55 PM


Nonetheless, they aren't actually seeing infrared.
Yeah, they are; just like how someone using a hammer is driving a nail, just like how someone sitting in an airplane is travelling, just like how someone making a phone call is talking to the other person.
Just like how someone gripping an orange in their medical prosthesis is holding an orange. All senses are prosthetic. Confusing freefall with "zero gravity" is an error of category, but there's no difference between seeing infrared via the prosthesis of a machine and seeing the visible spectrum via the prosthesis of your own eyes. It's not a "technical issue concerning science", it's your own idiosyncratic word use.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-15-2012 7:55 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-16-2012 3:32 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1574 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 87 of 215 (656133)
03-16-2012 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Dr Adequate
03-16-2012 3:32 PM


But it is English usage that is idiosyncratic.
By definition, it can't be. Again, you're confusing yourself with the arbiter of English usage. Usage is the arbiter of English usage.
Now, in plain English I'm lying or at the very least abusing language when I claim to have seen the Loch Ness Monster.
Not at all. If the "Loch Ness Monster" means "a fake aquatic reptile that people frequently manufacture photos of" than you're no more inaccurate in your speech than I am when I say that I've seen Mickey Mouse.
Where we draw a distinction between seeing something and seeing a picture of something is when it's possible to see something without seeing a picture of it - i.e. you can go to India and use your eyes to see the Taj Mahal directly. But it's not possible to use your eyes to see IR images directly, you have to use a machine to see a picture of an IR image, so in English we call that "seeing IR" because it's as close to seeing IR directly as it's possible to get.
And yet when a machine makes a series of measurements and, based on a theory that tells it how to interpret those measurements, synthesizes a visual representation of its data, you wish to say that someone looking at this visual representation has "seen" atoms.
Yes. Because I see no practical difference between a machine made of circuits interpreting EM data and a machine made of cells interpreting EM data. All senses are prosthetic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-16-2012 3:32 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-16-2012 5:34 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 89 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-16-2012 9:09 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1574 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 90 of 215 (657045)
03-25-2012 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Dr Adequate
03-16-2012 5:34 PM


Try this conversation.
Dr. Adequate, have you ever seen Mickey Mouse?
By your definition, you'd be forced to deny that you ever had - that, indeed, nobody ever had, since they had only ever seen images of Mickey Mouse, people pretending to be Mickey Mouse, and so on.
I've played tennis, but if I've only seen the Queen on television, I haven't seen the Queen.
Uh, no. If you've ever seen the Queen on television, or as a photograph in a magazine or on the computer, you've seen the Queen.
Everybody who has read this post has seen the Queen. See? There she is!
So you would claim that I have seen the Loch Ness Monster?
Sure. Most people have seen the Loch Ness Monster, just like most people have seen Mickey Mouse.
So ... the reason we should say that we can see infra-red ... is precisely because it is impossible to actually do so?
No, exactly wrong. It's precisely because it is possible to see in infrared that we say that we can see in infrared.
Using what device, prosthetic or otherwise, did you "see" the absence of a practical difference?
My mind. You see, "see" means many more things than just using your eyes to view something directly. See?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-16-2012 5:34 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-25-2012 1:59 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1574 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 91 of 215 (657046)
03-25-2012 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Dr Adequate
03-16-2012 9:09 PM


The mind boggles.
You should try using it to see, instead.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-16-2012 9:09 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-11-2012 12:50 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1574 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 94 of 215 (657090)
03-25-2012 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Dr Adequate
03-25-2012 1:59 PM


When you yourself admit, nay, insist, that according to your definition of "see", I have seen the Loch Ness Monster
Now everyone who's reading this post has seen the Loch Ness Monster.
I don't see what's so absurd about it. You've seen the Loch Ness Monster just the same way you've seen Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse. If you adamantly insisted that you had not seen Mickey Mouse, people would wonder where you had grown up because see means other things besides "direct observation, in-person."
Have you really not seen Mickey Mouse? Not ever? It seems like the one in the noose is you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-25-2012 1:59 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-25-2012 11:15 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 97 by onifre, posted 03-26-2012 1:38 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1574 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 99 of 215 (657269)
03-27-2012 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Dr Adequate
03-25-2012 11:15 PM


No ... they ... haven't.
Have you seen Mickey Mouse?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-25-2012 11:15 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Panda, posted 03-27-2012 9:10 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 103 by Modulous, posted 03-27-2012 10:33 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 107 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-27-2012 12:56 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1574 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 100 of 215 (657271)
03-27-2012 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by New Cat's Eye
03-26-2012 9:42 AM


Somehow, I don't think that's going to work for the creationists.
Well, sure, but that's because when they say that "macroevolution is fish turning into rabbits", or whatever, their mental notion is that this all happens to a single organism; that there was actually one fish that suddenly grew hair and long ears.
People look at that diagram of yours - monkey to man - and if they don't think about it too hard, they see it as a single monkey standing up and turning into a man. That's why "millions of years" doesn't make any sense to them; they know organisms don't live that long. (Except when they do.)
It's a fairly sophisticated mode of thought, requiring the simultaneous mental modeling of a large number of things, to view evolution not as something that happens to a single organism, or that happens in a single organism reproducing, but that happens as populations change and grow - as described statistically, stoichometrically - over long periods of time. It took me a long time to understand that, longer still to learn how to describe it to others. (I've probably not, in this post, succeeded.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-26-2012 9:42 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-27-2012 9:51 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1574 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 104 of 215 (657289)
03-27-2012 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by New Cat's Eye
03-27-2012 9:51 AM


I don't think you can witness that happening, do you?
Yeah, I think you can, particularly when generational times are fairly low (like 40 minutes or so.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-27-2012 9:51 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-27-2012 1:56 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1574 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 105 of 215 (657290)
03-27-2012 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Modulous
03-27-2012 10:33 AM


However, it would be misleading to say 'I have seen King Henry VIII', when all I have seen is a portrait or three of his.
I don't think it would be misleading, because I don't think anyone would think that you were claiming to be a time traveler. Similarly, people talking about 9/11 reminisce about what they were thinking when they "saw the twin towers fall", irrespective of whether they were actually at Ground Zero when that happened. Most people making that statement watched it happen on TV, even in New York.
"See" has a pretty expansive definition that includes nearly all forms of optical prosthesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Modulous, posted 03-27-2012 10:33 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Modulous, posted 03-27-2012 12:28 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 108 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-27-2012 1:00 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1574 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 110 of 215 (657725)
03-30-2012 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Modulous
03-27-2012 12:28 PM


People would groan and throw things at me if I were to say 'Last night I saw the Queen....on television'.
I don't think they would. They might wonder what your point is, but "last night, I saw the Queen on TV" is a completely quotidian statement in English, not groan-worthy in the least. It's roughly the same as "I saw the new episode of Game of Thrones on TV last night", and nobody would accuse you of lying simply because you did see it on TV, and not live on set during filming in Malta or wherever the fuck.
If I were to say 'I have witnessed primates evolving into humans' I would be by most sane understandings, lying.
Well, right, but the word we're talking about is "see", not "witness." And you can see that primates evolved into humans. With your eyes and everything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Modulous, posted 03-27-2012 12:28 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Modulous, posted 03-30-2012 9:18 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1574 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 112 of 215 (657730)
03-30-2012 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Modulous
03-30-2012 9:18 AM


But if I said "I saw the Queen last night" people might assume I had attended a Royal Visit or gone to Buckingham palace or somesuch. It would then elicit a groan if I were to later say 'on TV' because now it becomes a banal state of affairs.
But here the ambiguity is a function of why you think it's comment-worthy to have seen the Queen (on TV or in person.) It's not a function of you using or misusing the word "see", which is what we're talking about.
But we're talking about the word 'see' in the sense of witnessing.
I've been pursuing Dr. A's position that looking at the display of an infrared imager doesn't count as "seeing in infrared." But "see", as a word, is sufficiently broad to encompass such an act of seeing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Modulous, posted 03-30-2012 9:18 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1574 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 124 of 215 (659010)
04-11-2012 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Dr Adequate
04-11-2012 12:50 PM


According to you ideas, it seems that someone looking at a thing can suddenly change from seeing one thing to seeing another, this change being all unknown to him and corresponding to absolutely identical qualia.
Yes, now you're getting it! And yet, despite that logical ambiguity in language, people are able to communicate completely effectively with it, to the point that almost nobody bats an eye at asking their blind friend "hey, are you seeing anyone?"
"I can still see her face", says the poet of his lost love, despite that face having oh-so-dramatically cast itself down the bottom of a well, or some such, and therefore completely hidden from his eyes. And I doubt you would object in any other context. You're just being a tiresome asshole, and it's beneath the level of completely enjoyable assholeness we've come to expect from you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-11-2012 12:50 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-11-2012 11:28 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1574 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 127 of 215 (659098)
04-12-2012 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Dr Adequate
04-11-2012 11:28 PM


Then "it" is profoundly silly, and no-one talks like that except you.
Um, no, that's clearly false. "Seeing someone" is a common expression for "dating" regardless of one's eyesight, or the fact that a lot of what you're eventually doing, you're doing in the dark. This whole thing started because you took it upon yourself to "correct" several people who asserted that using an IR visualizer constituted "seeing" in IR. Nobody flinches at the notion that millions of people saw Janet Jackson's exposed breast during Super Bowl XXXVIII, even though Reliant Stadium seats only 71,000 people. A google search for the phrase returns on the order of 37 million hits, suggesting that the use of "see" in this regard is not unusual.
Since all senses are prosthetic anyway, it's clearly not an unusual usage to talk about "seeing" something through a prosthesis. Millions of children and adults will tell you that of course they've seen Mickey Mouse, even though there's no such person.
I prefer the English language to "it".
"Language" is the antecedent of the pronoun "it" in the sentence you quoted. I would have expected a speaker of English to know that. You might want to schedule some grammar classes before you crown yourself the arbiter of the English language, since you appear to know fuck-all about it.
"Can Stevie Wonder see?" someone asks me. I do not reply "yes" on the grounds that he has a girlfriend and is therefore "seeing someone".
Exactly. Because despite the inherent ambiguity in language, people are able to communicate effectively with it, completely contrary to your assertions otherwise.
As you are an interested party, I suggest that we leave that one to a jury of our peers.
Well, ok. Who thinks Dr. Adequate is still being funny or amusing? Who thinks he isn't? If people are really getting a charge out of this I'm perfectly happy to keep going, but doesn't it seem like we've bored everybody away?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-11-2012 11:28 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-12-2012 1:35 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1574 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 129 of 215 (659287)
04-14-2012 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Dr Adequate
04-12-2012 1:35 PM


Nor to those.
Wait, so now you don't object that an IR visualizer allows you to see in IR?
Then we are done, because you've accepted my position on language.
Really, after you asserted that I have seen the Loch Ness Monster, we're done for all practical purposes.
Then surely you can answer the question you keep ignoring:
By what basis can you claim that you've seen Mickey Mouse but not the Loch Ness Monster?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-12-2012 1:35 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-14-2012 11:59 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024