My pareidolia knows no bounds.

I don't get it. We just went through (what I thought was) a rather potent demonstration of the need to PAY ATTENTION to the meaning of words. And yet ...

<b>[pareidolia] "There is no sound without an ear or recording machine that our senses can make sense and sound of."</b>

Which definition of sound are you using? I can say 'There is plenty of sound without an ear anywhere in the universe' and be just as accurate as you. Because I have also not said which definition I'm using. One of them makes me a liar. The other makes you a liar.

<b>[pareidolia] "There is no blue without an eye. (There is 450 nm of small part of the electromagnetic-magnetic spectrum}."</b>

Same blah-de-blah.

<b>[pareidolia] &lt;more declaritive statements, using words with multiple definitions but not saying which he means.&gt;</b>

Same blah-de-blah.

Come on guys, exercise you brains a little. Please? Don't be afraid to type a few more characters, if it will remove some ambiguity from your pontificating.

Here s what I mean.

"A tree falls - no 'one' is around - does it make a sound?"

By one definition (a sound is a mechanical vibration that IS detected - ear, microphone, etc.) the answer is unambiguously NO. By the other definition (a sound is a mechanical vibration that CAN BE detected) the answer is unambiguously YES.

I suppose some would say this takes the fun out of certain discussions. But not me.

Comments?

LB

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br /> By the other definition (a sound is a mechanical vibration that CAN BE detected) the answer is unambiguously YES.

LB<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I guess, I would say...right.

Or, to quote both Aristotle and Ayn Rand at the same time:

"A thing is itself."

The minute you stray from that, all hell breaks loose.

rd

Meanwhile, Fred, thanks for mentioning "Go". I forgot about it a long time ago. I've been reading about it for the last two days, and it reminds me of the game that Captain Kirk made up the episode "A Piece of the Action" called "Fizzbin" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_in_Star_Trek#Fizzbin

Where the rules change on Tuesday.

Very interesting, though. I must agree.

LB- Do we have to define every term or just certain ones like (oops i have to be careful here) pareidolia(ressler/ Vel 1/ common)sound (no ear/ ear/ microphone/ worm sound sensing/ etc.). What makes a term worthy of needing parenthetical treatment? We could define what the definition of "is" "is" we are talking about like Bill Clinton.
When using the term "sound" it is implied that there are different definitions. Any word implies many definitions.

i say talk straight and simple like David Bohm and Georges Ohsawa.
We are trying to "get at" what if anything "reality" is. We need no more definitions- if anything we need to show how definitions are meaningless but useful tools if we use them positively and try to get somewhere or get here.

rd- Years ago i told a acquaintance the outer world was politically governed like the game of chess with Kings- Queens and Pawns etc. White moving first etc. He answered "How do you know it's not like the game of Go" (black moves first). The second he said that i intuited it was true. Not just for the world but the quantum universe. i also know the rule of Karma is a man made rule that match up to the real quantum universe and that all people follow it as all people follow the tao which hippies renamed the flow- . Go is so "real" that there is no way to exactly determine who wins (the closer the game the more difficult). In reality there obviously is no winning and losing- life and death etc. These are all man's way of looking at things. If we subtract these man made distorsions we can perceive "what is" to the maximum degree possible.

<b>pareidoliac: Do we have to define every term or just certain ones ...</b>

Maybe not all, but at least some of the terms you use. But only if you wish other people to understand what you are trying to communicate.

I for one, based on what you have written, do not understand how you experience reality or how it compares with what I experience. So I tend skim what you write, looking for some glimmer of meaning.