It is run. This is one of the few verbs where the infinitive and past participle are the same. The simple past tense is different (ran). Past Participle: run.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-past-participle-of-the-word-run
Theme: Grammar
-
What Is The Past Participle Of The Word “run”?
-
“Can you have reason without logic, and language without placeholder/tautology?”
—“Can you have reason without logic, and language without placeholder/tautology?”–Dmitry Chernov
We conflate the terms a great deal, but reasoning consists of both wayfinding (via positiva free association ) and what we call ‘logicAL’ operations (via negativa dissassociations) that test constant relations between states.
But if we are to avoid conflation, reasoning consists of informal free association and dis-association (dissociation), while the LOGICS consist of formal grammars by which we perform via negativa disassociations by tests (falsifications) of associations (constant relations).
A grammar consists of rules (patterns really) of continuous disambiguation. The logics study and catalog subsets of constant relations (dimensions) such as time.
When we ask, can we have language without referrents (Names) – well, we are capable of non-liguistic reasoning so yes. And we are capable of sign language. but we must have a grammar in both cases to communicate.
And as for ‘natural grammar’ that appears to be nothing more than the same thing neurons do in large numbers: associate and disassociate by a process of continuous disambiguation (category formation) and the recursive differences in state as we ponder it.
Source date (UTC): 2018-02-16 11:58:00 UTC
-
“Can you have reason without logic, and language without placeholder/tautology?”
—“Can you have reason without logic, and language without placeholder/tautology?”–Dmitry Chernov We conflate the terms a great deal, but reasoning consists of both wayfinding (via positiva free association ) and what we call ‘logicAL’ operations (via negativa dissassociations) that test constant relations between states. But if we are to avoid conflation, reasoning consists of informal free association and dis-association (dissociation), while the LOGICS consist of formal grammars by which we perform via negativa disassociations by tests (falsifications) of associations (constant relations). A grammar consists of rules (patterns really) of continuous disambiguation. The logics study and catalog subsets of constant relations (dimensions) such as time. When we ask, can we have language without referrents (Names) – well, we are capable of non-liguistic reasoning so yes. And we are capable of sign language. but we must have a grammar in both cases to communicate. And as for ‘natural grammar’ that appears to be nothing more than the same thing neurons do in large numbers: associate and disassociate by a process of continuous disambiguation (category formation) and the recursive differences in state as we ponder it. -
“Can you have reason without logic, and language without placeholder/tautology?”
—“Can you have reason without logic, and language without placeholder/tautology?”–Dmitry Chernov We conflate the terms a great deal, but reasoning consists of both wayfinding (via positiva free association ) and what we call ‘logicAL’ operations (via negativa dissassociations) that test constant relations between states. But if we are to avoid conflation, reasoning consists of informal free association and dis-association (dissociation), while the LOGICS consist of formal grammars by which we perform via negativa disassociations by tests (falsifications) of associations (constant relations). A grammar consists of rules (patterns really) of continuous disambiguation. The logics study and catalog subsets of constant relations (dimensions) such as time. When we ask, can we have language without referrents (Names) – well, we are capable of non-liguistic reasoning so yes. And we are capable of sign language. but we must have a grammar in both cases to communicate. And as for ‘natural grammar’ that appears to be nothing more than the same thing neurons do in large numbers: associate and disassociate by a process of continuous disambiguation (category formation) and the recursive differences in state as we ponder it. -
Does Wittgenstein’s conclusion on the omnipotence paradoxes put an end to them?-
–Does Wittgenstein’s conclusion on the omnipotence paradoxes put an end to them?— Wittgenstein did not solve the problem that he sought to, Frege thru Kripke and the followers of Turing (meaning Chomsky) did. (a) there exist no paradoxes, only the application of the rules of formal (deflationary) grammars to colloquial (suggestive) and inflationary (fictional) speech. In other words, there exist no paradoxes that are not simply incomplete sentences (transactions). (b) wittgenstein and russell are correct: in the end, the investment in logic has been a waste of time. It’s nothing but tautology. Because we cannot use the logic of constant semantic relations (language) as we do the logic of constant positional relations (mathematics) to produce proofs. And the Intuitionists were correct: We cannot even do so in mathematics. So what the logics allow us to do is falsify statements, but not prove statements. -
Does Wittgenstein’s conclusion on the omnipotence paradoxes put an end to them?-
–Does Wittgenstein’s conclusion on the omnipotence paradoxes put an end to them?— Wittgenstein did not solve the problem that he sought to, Frege thru Kripke and the followers of Turing (meaning Chomsky) did. (a) there exist no paradoxes, only the application of the rules of formal (deflationary) grammars to colloquial (suggestive) and inflationary (fictional) speech. In other words, there exist no paradoxes that are not simply incomplete sentences (transactions). (b) wittgenstein and russell are correct: in the end, the investment in logic has been a waste of time. It’s nothing but tautology. Because we cannot use the logic of constant semantic relations (language) as we do the logic of constant positional relations (mathematics) to produce proofs. And the Intuitionists were correct: We cannot even do so in mathematics. So what the logics allow us to do is falsify statements, but not prove statements. -
Wittgenstein’s conclusion on the omnipotence paradoxes put an end to them?— Wi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox#Language_and_omnipotence–Does Wittgenstein’s conclusion on the omnipotence paradoxes put an end to them?—
Wittgenstein did not solve the problem that he sought to, Frege thru Kripke and the followers of Turing (meaning Chomsky) did.
(a) there exist no paradoxes, only the application of the rules of formal (deflationary) grammars to colloquial (suggestive) and inflationary (fictional) speech. In other words, there exist no paradoxes that are not simply incomplete sentences (transactions).
(b) wittgenstein and russell are correct: in the end, the investment in logic has been a waste of time. It’s nothing but tautology. Because we cannot use the logic of constant semantic relations (language) as we do the logic of constant positional relations (mathematics) to produce proofs. And the Intuitionists were correct: We cannot even do so in mathematics. So what the logics allow us to do is falsify statements, but not prove statements.Updated Feb 16, 2018, 1:28 AM
Source date (UTC): 2018-02-16 01:28:00 UTC
-
DEFINE “YOU” If I put your ashes in an urn, is that you? If I put your dead body
DEFINE “YOU”
If I put your ashes in an urn, is that you?
If I put your dead body in a casket is that you?
If I read your written words, isthat you?
whenever you use the word ‘is’ you are engaged in a self or other deception, because it means “i don’t know how this exists”. When you use the word ‘you’ as referencing the physical body, or ‘you’ as the potential interaction of mind and body, or ‘you’ as the acting interaction between mind and body…. which are you asking?
Because ‘is’ and ‘you’ questions aren’t philosophical questions, their grammatical errors positioned as a pretense of philosophical sophisms.
I consist of the consequences of the continuous operation of my body, and in particular my brain.
the written word consist only of potential experience until
a mind puts it into motion by reading it. the body consists of biomass until a brain causes it to move. A brain consists of reactive nerves, until the that experence we call mind emerges from the continuous persistence of states.
Just as we cannot observe the frames of video, we cannot observe the cycles of changes in state of the mind, and so we ‘average them’ through the persistence of stimuli across cycles.
We do have a sense of self awareness that functions pre-cognitively, and can best be understood as that moment you awake in the dark and are unaware of your circumstances.
It is this awareness of changes in state and like and dislikes that is ‘I’? Well, that is governed by genes. Is that ‘I’? Or am ‘i’ the combination of those genetic biases, that very simple state monitor, or at the other end, am ‘I’ that combination of body and memory in motion that you experience as a set of contsant relations ‘me?’.
To the mentally ill person ‘i’ consists of a body in its current state. To the observer ‘i’ consists of a set of patterns of behavior given the experiences. To others (norm, law), ‘i’ consists of the rights and obligations to the host body.
etc.
Source date (UTC): 2018-02-10 15:54:00 UTC
-
DEFINE “YOU” If I put your ashes in an urn, is that you? If I put your dead body
DEFINE “YOU” If I put your ashes in an urn, is that you? If I put your dead body in a casket is that you? If I read your written words, isthat you? whenever you use the word ‘is’ you are engaged in a self or other deception, because it means “i don’t know how this exists”. When you use the word ‘you’ as referencing the physical body, or ‘you’ as the potential interaction of mind and body, or ‘you’ as the acting interaction between mind and body…. which are you asking? Because ‘is’ and ‘you’ questions aren’t philosophical questions, their grammatical errors positioned as a pretense of philosophical sophisms. I consist of the consequences of the continuous operation of my body, and in particular my brain. the written word consist only of potential experience until a mind puts it into motion by reading it. the body consists of biomass until a brain causes it to move. A brain consists of reactive nerves, until the that experence we call mind emerges from the continuous persistence of states. Just as we cannot observe the frames of video, we cannot observe the cycles of changes in state of the mind, and so we ‘average them’ through the persistence of stimuli across cycles. We do have a sense of self awareness that functions pre-cognitively, and can best be understood as that moment you awake in the dark and are unaware of your circumstances. It is this awareness of changes in state and like and dislikes that is ‘I’? Well, that is governed by genes. Is that ‘I’? Or am ‘i’ the combination of those genetic biases, that very simple state monitor, or at the other end, am ‘I’ that combination of body and memory in motion that you experience as a set of contsant relations ‘me?’. To the mentally ill person ‘i’ consists of a body in its current state. To the observer ‘i’ consists of a set of patterns of behavior given the experiences. To others (norm, law), ‘i’ consists of the rights and obligations to the host body. etc. -
DEFINE “YOU” If I put your ashes in an urn, is that you? If I put your dead body
DEFINE “YOU” If I put your ashes in an urn, is that you? If I put your dead body in a casket is that you? If I read your written words, isthat you? whenever you use the word ‘is’ you are engaged in a self or other deception, because it means “i don’t know how this exists”. When you use the word ‘you’ as referencing the physical body, or ‘you’ as the potential interaction of mind and body, or ‘you’ as the acting interaction between mind and body…. which are you asking? Because ‘is’ and ‘you’ questions aren’t philosophical questions, their grammatical errors positioned as a pretense of philosophical sophisms. I consist of the consequences of the continuous operation of my body, and in particular my brain. the written word consist only of potential experience until a mind puts it into motion by reading it. the body consists of biomass until a brain causes it to move. A brain consists of reactive nerves, until the that experence we call mind emerges from the continuous persistence of states. Just as we cannot observe the frames of video, we cannot observe the cycles of changes in state of the mind, and so we ‘average them’ through the persistence of stimuli across cycles. We do have a sense of self awareness that functions pre-cognitively, and can best be understood as that moment you awake in the dark and are unaware of your circumstances. It is this awareness of changes in state and like and dislikes that is ‘I’? Well, that is governed by genes. Is that ‘I’? Or am ‘i’ the combination of those genetic biases, that very simple state monitor, or at the other end, am ‘I’ that combination of body and memory in motion that you experience as a set of contsant relations ‘me?’. To the mentally ill person ‘i’ consists of a body in its current state. To the observer ‘i’ consists of a set of patterns of behavior given the experiences. To others (norm, law), ‘i’ consists of the rights and obligations to the host body. etc.