—“My question concerns technical and scientific language rather than colloquial language: I would like to ask if there is any inclination in English to give the words class and category more or less different meanings or shades of meaning, or are they completely interchangeable in all kinds of use?”— From Elsewhere You CLASSIFY things that exist (Science – referents that exist into a hierarchy) whose organization doesn’t change, and you CATEGORIZE ideas (Philosophy – referents that have meaning into a list) because they can change. So classify(things, hierarchy or order, relatively invariant), vs. categorize(concepts, terms, that might be categorized differently in different contexts). So just as english words have origins in german(commoners, farmers, craftsmen), french(nobility, ruling class, wealthy), Latin and Greek(scholarly or educated classes), English (like all european languages) uses specialized vocabulary for mathematical, philosophical, political/Legal, and scientific classes of vocabulary. English is very ‘precise’ in its use of sets of terms the same way that german is precise in its precisely descriptive terms. Now, do uneducated people conflate terms? All the time. In fact educated people do all the time as well. My favorite examples being the conflation of mathematic (axiomatic), philosophical(rational), and scientific (theoretic), terminology. It’s not uncommon to hear someone make an argument with terms from math, philosophy, and science without having the faintest idea that the terms in each limit the possible properties of argument. For example, True in math and logic is binary(Deductive and Necessary). In philosophy it can be binary(non contradictory), in law it’s ternary(True false and undecidable), in and in science it’s multivalued with False being the only certainty, and truth being little more than an ordinality by triangulation). If someone disagrees with you on usage you can correct them. 😉
Form: Definition
-
Difference Between Class(Hierarchy) and Category (List) – is just that.
—“My question concerns technical and scientific language rather than colloquial language: I would like to ask if there is any inclination in English to give the words class and category more or less different meanings or shades of meaning, or are they completely interchangeable in all kinds of use?”— From Elsewhere You CLASSIFY things that exist (Science – referents that exist into a hierarchy) whose organization doesn’t change, and you CATEGORIZE ideas (Philosophy – referents that have meaning into a list) because they can change. So classify(things, hierarchy or order, relatively invariant), vs. categorize(concepts, terms, that might be categorized differently in different contexts). So just as english words have origins in german(commoners, farmers, craftsmen), french(nobility, ruling class, wealthy), Latin and Greek(scholarly or educated classes), English (like all european languages) uses specialized vocabulary for mathematical, philosophical, political/Legal, and scientific classes of vocabulary. English is very ‘precise’ in its use of sets of terms the same way that german is precise in its precisely descriptive terms. Now, do uneducated people conflate terms? All the time. In fact educated people do all the time as well. My favorite examples being the conflation of mathematic (axiomatic), philosophical(rational), and scientific (theoretic), terminology. It’s not uncommon to hear someone make an argument with terms from math, philosophy, and science without having the faintest idea that the terms in each limit the possible properties of argument. For example, True in math and logic is binary(Deductive and Necessary). In philosophy it can be binary(non contradictory), in law it’s ternary(True false and undecidable), in and in science it’s multivalued with False being the only certainty, and truth being little more than an ordinality by triangulation). If someone disagrees with you on usage you can correct them. 😉
-
Consciousness
Well, what we call consciousness: that continuous change in state between perception, search(perception-memory-prediction), focus, impulse, decision, and action – serves almost entirely as ‘the search for opportunities’ for acquisition of the host of things that are valuable to us. It’s not complicated. I am not sure why consciousness is so hard to understand. It’s not. Brains are not gears. Our various charges are affected by momentum, resistance and capacitance, and continuous iteration (echoes) create persistence of perception just as much as our eyes create persistence of vision. That’s consciousness.
We seize opportunities for reward. -
Consciousness
Well, what we call consciousness: that continuous change in state between perception, search(perception-memory-prediction), focus, impulse, decision, and action – serves almost entirely as ‘the search for opportunities’ for acquisition of the host of things that are valuable to us. It’s not complicated. I am not sure why consciousness is so hard to understand. It’s not. Brains are not gears. Our various charges are affected by momentum, resistance and capacitance, and continuous iteration (echoes) create persistence of perception just as much as our eyes create persistence of vision. That’s consciousness.
We seize opportunities for reward. -
Nationalism
Nationalism: If you cannot hold a territory (country) and form a state( monopoly) then the market for territorial monopoly has spoken: you are a failed people. A Country, meaning a State, either serves nation tribe clan and family, or it destroys nation, tribe, clan and family. It’s not that a state is a bad thing. It’s that commercial revenue interests evolve to trump the interests of nation, tribe, clan and family.
-
Nationalism
Nationalism: If you cannot hold a territory (country) and form a state( monopoly) then the market for territorial monopoly has spoken: you are a failed people. A Country, meaning a State, either serves nation tribe clan and family, or it destroys nation, tribe, clan and family. It’s not that a state is a bad thing. It’s that commercial revenue interests evolve to trump the interests of nation, tribe, clan and family.
-
The Full Range of Market Goods?
- Goods (Physical),
- Services (Actions),
- Information (Knowledge)
- Promises (Requirements),
- Opportunities (Options)
Is that all there is really? Yep. Next Question. But when we talk about goods and services, that isn’t (a) all that markets produce, and (b) all that we regulate. The question is why we don’t regulate information the way we regulate goods, services, promises, and opportunities. -
The Full Range of Market Goods?
- Goods (Physical),
- Services (Actions),
- Information (Knowledge)
- Promises (Requirements),
- Opportunities (Options)
Is that all there is really? Yep. Next Question. But when we talk about goods and services, that isn’t (a) all that markets produce, and (b) all that we regulate. The question is why we don’t regulate information the way we regulate goods, services, promises, and opportunities. -
Truth
TRUTH: From Correspondence to Non-Correspondence 1 – Martial (Or we die) 2 – Technological, (Or it doesn’t work, and we carry losses) 3 – Commercial (or we forgo opportunity) 4 – Normative (or we fail to create oppy’s for cooperation) 5 – Political (or we fail to create commons) 6 – Philosophical (or we fail to create common decidability) 7 – Theological (or we fail to create social mindfulness) 8 – Spiritual (or we fail to create personal mindfulness)
-
Untitled
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-28 17:45:00 UTC