NationStates Jolt Archive

If I ask you how many legs a (normal, unharmed) cow has, but say to you that I'm counting it's tail as a 'leg', what would you say?

What? Well, I'd say 0 legs, because if a leg is counted as a tail, it doesn't have any legs, but it has 5 tails.

What? Well, I'd say 0 legs, because if a leg is counted as a tail, it doesn't have any legs, but it has 5 tails.
I fubbed the OP; it's fixed now.

Five. Now, what's the catch?

Id ask why the hell the tail is a leg.

I'd say that you were an idiot to say a tail is a leg.

Five. Now, what's the catch?

Id ask why the hell the tail is a leg.
If I call it's tail a leg, does that make it a leg, other than semantically?

If I call it's tail a leg, does that make it a leg, other than semantically?

No?

If I call it's tail a leg, does that make it a leg, other than semantically?Does calling something by another name change what it really is?

I would punch you and kick you and possibly report your actions to the authorities.

If I call it's tail a leg, does that make it a leg, other than semantically?

A rose by any other name...

Five. Now, what's the catch?

No?
See, some would say (perhaps you Spartzerina) that if I call the cow's tail a leg, it is a leg, beyond merely the semantic usage of the term. Others would insist (probably you Kol) that it isn't a leg, no matter what you call it.

(If you're interested KoL, this thread stems off of the Nietzsche comment in the protectionism thread.)


I would punch you and kick you and possibly report your actions to the authorities.
You would, Hilary, you would...

Well it's up to you really, you can call a tail a leg, 'leg' is just a sound descriptor, you can apply it to anything you want in your crazy little world.

You'd have to understand the distinction between the structure and purpose of a tail and leg, just calling a tail a leg doesn't make it the same thing, it's merely using the same descriptor for two different things.

Of course, if you want to communicate effectively you're going to have difficulties because there's an accepted descriptor for a tail, it's 'a tail'.

So, sure, calling a tail a leg can mean a tail is, in your world, called a leg, but it doesn't change the distinct features of a tail nor is it accepted by most people, so, just for you.

So, 5, with the understanding that it's 4 legs and then there's also a leg.

(If you're interested KoL, this thread stems off of the Nietzsche comment in the protectionism thread.)

Really now?

I will keep close watch on this.

Well it's up to you really, you can call a tail a leg, 'leg' is just a sound descriptor, you can apply it to anything you want in your crazy little world.
But am I wrong, or just crazy?

See, some would say (perhaps you Spartzerina) that if I call the cow's tail a leg, it is a leg, beyond merely the semantic usage of the term. Others would insist (probably you Kol) that it isn't a leg, no matter what you call it.

(If you're interested KoL, this thread stems off of the Nietzsche comment in the protectionism thread.)

But you didn't ask if a tail was a leg, originally. You asked how many things signified as "leg" a cow has assuming the item [tail] is also signified as "leg". So there are five things signified as "leg". Whether or not a tail is actually a leg is irrelevant to your original question.

Chomsky FTW.

EDIT: Unless, of course, you are asking how many of the things most commonly signified as "leg" a cow has, in which case the answer is still 4. Which are you asking?

But am I wrong, or just crazy?

Depends on the level, wrong in terms of accepted understanding of the word but not necessarily 'wrong' if that's what you choose to term the tail, not wrong to you.

If you really, truly believe there's no difference between a tail and a leg, then I'd edge towards either crazy or plain ignorant.

Which are you asking?
I'm not asking either, technically.

I'm talking whether the cow has four or five legs ontologically, not semantically.


To enlighten, I'm inclined to be a realist about this, to say that the cow has four legs, even if you call the tail a 'leg'. In blunt terms, the something about the world isn't true just because you say it's true. I imagine (perhaps wrongly) that most folk would agree with me on this point.

However, a point was raised to me tonight if we use a different example:

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that in the world 'marriage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbqv3MwwVd8&feature=related)' means 'the act of (legal) union between one man and a woman'. (Again, I'd stress, for the sake of argument. This isn't the thread to debate the rights and wrongs of gay marriage, though they in a vague way connected to what I'm going to say.) Suppose that on the Earth there is no place where the institution of 'marriage' could be understood as anything else but 'the act of (legal) union between one man and a woman'.

If I'm committed to the view that the cow has four legs, how can I be committed to changing the understanding of marriage; to making it true, through my thinking (and action caused by my thinking), that marriage can mean, say, 'the act of (legal) union between one person of any gender and another person of any gender'?

(I have further thoughts on this, but I'd like to see you guys' reactions)

Suppose that on the Earth there is no place where the institution of 'marriage' could be understood as anything else but 'the act of (legal) union between one man and a woman'.

If I'm committed to the view that the cow has four legs, how can I be committed to changing the understanding of marriage; to making it true, through my thinking (and action caused by my thinking), that marriage can mean, say, 'the act of (legal) union between one person of any gender and another person of any gender'?

If marriage was a term that solely described a union between a man and a woman, then it's incorrect to call 'marriage' a union between anything else. It would be a specific descriptor equivalent to 'leg', well, not totally, it describes a status not a physical object.

Yet that is a hypothetical situation since marriage has legal consequences that confer a certain status, it has other connotations than merely the legal union between a man and woman.

5 if female 6 if male.

Do as you like, you don't have a leg to stand on.

4 because i dont care what you consider the tail. a cow only has 4 legs when *I* answer the question.

I'm not asking either, technically.

I'm talking whether the cow has four or five legs ontologically, not semantically.


To enlighten, I'm inclined to be a realist about this, to say that the cow has four legs, even if you call the tail a 'leg'. In blunt terms, the something about the world isn't true just because you say it's true. I imagine (perhaps wrongly) that most folk would agree with me on this point.

I'm a rather pragmatic person: whether or not the cow's tail is a leg or a tail is irrelevant. The question inherently requires you to ask using language, which puts it into a context: by asking to assume that the tail is a leg, you put the question into a context which reassigns the signifier "leg" to include the swishy thing on the cow's ass. Everything you say is a part of a context and can't be separated from it.

Simply put, whether or not something persists outside of the context of what you're saying doesn't matter, since you can't tell anyone about it without putting it right back into that context.

Simply put, whether or not something persists outside of the context of what you're saying doesn't matter, since you can't tell anyone about it without putting it right back into that context.
But is that context the truth, or merely a way of contextualising things?

EDIT: I know you're saying it doesn't matter, but indulge me.

But is that context the truth, or merely a way of contextualising things?

EDIT: I know you're saying it doesn't matter, but indulge me.

That's as far as it goes. You can't say whether or not the truth exists outside of the contextualizing process because to do so would require the use of signifiers which would contextualize it.

Unless you are participating in an abstract logic exercise where you can state the premises that must be accepted as true, you're wrong. Cows have 4 legs. Attempting to re-define a tail as a leg does not make it a leg. It has no function or appearance relating to being a leg.

But is that context the truth, or merely a way of contextualising things?

I'm of the opinion that where a descriptor consistently describes a 'thing' then, although it might not be the truth, it's true in its consistency.

So, where there's a chair in a room and, upon entering, all people see and describe the object as a chair, then the truth is that there's a chair there.

There's a certain fluidity in description, some might argue it's a sofa where the design hovers between the two, but, if nothing else, the truth is that an object is there, one we commonly call a chair.

Where this applies to marriage, again, it's not a physical object but still, consistency determines the truth of the description, hence, where 'marriage' is a specific description of a union between a man and a woman, then that is what it is.

Unless you are participating in an abstract logic exercise where you can state the premises that must be accepted as true, you're wrong. Cows have 4 legs. Attempting to re-define a tail as a leg does not make it a leg. It has no function or appearance relating to being a leg.

But what defines a "leg"?

Rather, what does "leg" define, and why does it define that?

You can't say whether or not the truth exists outside of the contextualizing process because to do so would require the use of signifiers which would contextualize it.
Think beyond the realm of signifiers, or at least, beyond the realm of communicating them to other people.

Does the change in a signifier change the external world, or just the (use of) the signifier itself? i.e. can we be fallible in the use of our signifiers/descriptors?

But you didn't ask if a tail was a leg, originally. You asked how many things signified as "leg" a cow has assuming the item [tail] is also signified as "leg". So there are five things signified as "leg". Whether or not a tail is actually a leg is irrelevant to your original question.

Chomsky FTW.

EDIT: Unless, of course, you are asking how many of the things most commonly signified as "leg" a cow has, in which case the answer is still 4. Which are you asking?

This. And just about everything else RhynoD said.

Think beyond the realm of signifiers, or at least, beyond the realm of communicating them to other people.

You can't. This is not possible. It requires the use of signifiers, even if it means you create them to describe the new ideas and concepts outside the realm of signifiers, which brings them into the realm of signifiers, which contextualizes them.

Does the change in a signifier change the external world, or just the (use of) the signifier itself? i.e. can we be fallible in the use of our signifiers/descriptors?

You can't prove that it does or does not change the external world.
And fallible according to whom? Ourselves? Each other? The only fallibility is being misunderstood. If you are not understood or misunderstood, you used the wrong signifier.

This. And just about everything else RhynoD said.

Sigged.

4 because i dont care what you consider the tail. a cow only has 4 legs when *I* answer the question.
Oh, and this is the correct answer.
You can say the cow is really a pig, and that can be true for you. However, no one else is under the obligation to humor or honor your delusion.

You can't. This is not possible.
Sorry, not 'don't think in signifiers', but 'leaving aside the realm of human signifiers for a sec'.

I'm not asking you to do the impossible and stop referring to things with descriptors, just think about some metaphysics rather than linguistics.

And fallible according to whom? Ourselves? Each other?
Compared to the external world, objective reality.

There's a sign in front of Colchester, it simply says 'Colchester', marking the boundaries of the city we call... Colchester.

Yet the sign itself isn't Colchester, much as the word 'leg' is not an actual leg.

One could put the sign in front of Oxford, it would be wrong, as in it's a wrong usage in terms of indicating the boundary of Colchester.

Point being that there's no truth in language itself, there is only truth in what it describes, the object is true, not the term used to describe it, which is entirely interchangeable dependent on consistency of description.

The leg exists without the descriptor.

Sorry, not 'don't think in signifiers', but 'leaving aside the realm of human signifiers for a sec'.

You can't. Human signifiers are the context in which we think and communicate. If it were possible for me to think without them, I still couldn't explain it to you, since that would require human signifiers and would contextualize it.

Which, incidentally, is why Transcendentalism was the dumbest literary movement.

I'm not asking you to do the impossible and stop referring to things with descriptors, just think about some metaphysics rather than linguistics.

I am thinking metaphysical thoughts. I can't communicate them to you, because that would require linguistics.

Compared to the external world, objective reality.

What objective reality? If such a thing exists (and philosophers, scientists, and theologians have all been debating such an assertion), discussion of it is irrelevant, since observing it contextualizes it: it is encoded into my brain in a way that is unique to my brain, and when I communicate it to you, it will be re-contextualized in English so that you can understand it and encode it into your brain, which will re-contextualize it again.

And anyways, quantum mechanics says nothing really exists unless you're observing it anyways.




So there you go. The cow has no tails. And four tails. And five tails.




And you are a cat in a box. Schrodinger's poster?

The leg exists without the descriptor.

I disagree. It does not. My justification: prove it does.

I disagree. It does not. My justification: prove it does.

You see it and I see it, proof enough [see, touch, taste, smell etc.,]

You might argue I cannot prove you can see it but everything I see is consistent in terms of other people's ability to act and react to what we call a leg.

Therefore it exists, even if we go down the route of solipsism, it still exists to me, which, under solipsism, is all that matters.

You see it and I see it, proof enough [see, touch, taste, smell etc.,]

You might argue I cannot prove you can see it but everything I see is consistent in terms of other people's ability to act and react to what we call a leg.

Therefore it exists, even if we go down the route of solipsism, it still exists to me, which, under solipsism, is all that matters.

No, I wasn't trying to go the route of skepticism. I meant prove it now, where I definitely cannot see it, skepticism aside. You can't do it without using language. If you're using language, technically all you're doing is proving to me that a signifier "leg" exists and is associated with a thing that, presumably, does exist but may not necessarily (since, after all, we signify all sorts of things that don't "really" exist).

There's a sign in front of Colchester, it simply says 'Colchester', marking the boundaries of the city we call... Colchester.

Yet the sign itself isn't Colchester, much as the word 'leg' is not an actual leg...

The leg exists without the descriptor.
See, I feel there's a difference between Colchester and the leg (beyond the obvious). The leg, assuming some rather controversial premises, exists in the external world; it is, for want of a better term, a natural thing. But something like Colchester, or the government, money, marriage, etc., involve concepts that don't have a direct equivalent in the external world.

Sure, we can point to to the buildings, roads, etc., that make up Colchester, but there's more to it than that. There's (agreed upon) practices and beliefs that make up Colchester, or, perhaps more easily, government.



I am thinking metaphysical thoughts. I can't communicate them to you, because that would require linguistics.
Once again, I'm not asking you to communicate to me without using descriptors.

I'm asking, and realising you'll have to answer me using descriptors, whether you think there exits an external world beyond those descriptors, independent of them.

If there were no humans (no mathematicians) would the moon still be roughly spherical?

No, I wasn't trying to go the route of skepticism. I meant prove it now, where I definitely cannot see it, skepticism aside. You can't do it without using language. If you're using language, technically all you're doing is proving to me that a signifier "leg" exists and is associated with a thing that, presumably, does exist but may not necessarily (since, after all, we signify all sorts of things that don't "really" exist).

Sure, all you're saying is that I cannot impart the 'leg' to you without language, doesn't deny the fact that the leg exists separate to the word. Doesn't matter if I can prove it to you or not, doesn't matter if I'm lying, there's an objective truth as to whether the leg exists or not.

All I'm saying is that objective reality exists, language is merely a means of describing it, no objective truth in itself, merely in what it describes.

Tails aren't legs, they're extensions of the spine. Limbs tend to have a specific structure in an animal and the tail has a different structure.

I would say - "according to your parameters, it has 5 legs, however, in the English language, the tail is not a leg."

See, I feel there's a difference between Colchester and the leg (beyond the obvious). The leg, assuming some rather controversial premises, exists in the external world; it is, for want of a better term, a natural thing. But something like Colchester, or the government, money, marriage, etc., involve concepts that don't have a direct equivalent in the external world.

Sure, we can point to to the buildings, roads, etc., that make up Colchester, but there's more to it than that. There's (agreed upon) practices and beliefs that make up Colchester, or, perhaps more easily, government.

Amm... as long as you and I understand the object[s] being described under the term then that's all required, whether it exists as a physical object is irrelevant.

Regardless of whether we agree on what we mean by Colchester, there are still streets and buildings that objectively exist.

I suspect the word 'exist' needs to be delineated according to use.

'Does this chair exist' is different to 'Does free will exist'.

Sure, all you're saying is that I cannot impart the 'leg' to you without language, doesn't deny the fact that the leg exists separate to the word. Doesn't matter if I can prove it to you or not, doesn't matter if I'm lying, there's an objective truth as to whether the leg exists or not.

All I'm saying is that objective reality exists, language is merely a means of describing it, no objective truth in itself, merely in what it describes.

Prove that objective reality exists is what I'm saying. It does deny that leg exists without someone saying it, or at least thinking it. Directly observing it is different: you are describing it with your senses. But once it is outside the range of your observation, whether or not a thing exists doesn't matter until you think it does (which requires an encoded signifier within your brain) or someone else says it does (which requires a phonetic signifier). If your brain doesn't encode it and no one says it, whether or not it exists doesn't matter and you can't prove that it does.

Moreover, once again, quantum physics says it doesn't exist anyways.

Once again, I'm not asking you to communicate to me without using descriptors.

I'm asking, and realising you'll have to answer me using descriptors, whether you think there exits an external world beyond those descriptors, independent of them.

If there were no humans (no mathematicians) would the moon still be roughly spherical?

If there are no humans (and presumably no other intelligent creature floating about) it wouldn't matter whether or not the moon was roughly spherical because there wouldn't be anyone around to call it roughly spherical.

Whether you define the cow's tail as a leg is irrelevant. Since I do not define the cow's tail as a leg, it still has four legs. Unless you cut one of them off or something.

On the other hand, if everyone were to define tails as legs, cows would have only one leg. As the tail is very different from the leg, calling the tail 'leg' would necessitate calling the leg something else -- let's say 'hoofstalk'. Cows would thus have four hoofstalks, and one leg.

Society redefining 'legs' to mean 'legs and tails' would lead to cows having five legs. However, in that context 'legs' would lose much of its meaning, and scientists would still differentiate between the legs, perhaps calling some of them hoof-legs and some of them arse-legs, et cetera, et cetera. You need a better analogy. :P

See, I feel there's a difference between Colchester and the leg (beyond the obvious). The leg, assuming some rather controversial premises, exists in the external world; it is, for want of a better term, a natural thing. But something like Colchester, or the government, money, marriage, etc., involve concepts that don't have a direct equivalent in the external world.

Sure, we can point to to the buildings, roads, etc., that make up Colchester, but there's more to it than that. There's (agreed upon) practices and beliefs that make up Colchester, or, perhaps more easily, government.
Yes, but if you took the sign to Colchester and put it in front of Oxford, while there would be no real difference in other senses -- after all, it's just a name, it's not the city itself -- it would still be wrong. Because people still call Oxford Oxford, not Colchester. Names are defined by society, so unless Oxford were to officially change its name to Colchester by majority vote and uphold that with years of tradition, a sign indicating it as such would be incorrect.

I pick 6. But then, I've never been that good at maths.

Also,
http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/5673/lols.png

If I call it's tail a leg, does that make it a leg, other than semantically?

that's when it's time to sing that song from Sesame Street:
one of these things is not like the other,
one of these things just doesn't belong.
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?

at that point, if you can't figure out that calling something a "leg" doesn't mean it's a leg, then it's time to get you on new medication.

If I call it's tail a leg, does that make it a leg, other than semantically?

I reckon this is basically just mixing word games together.

This thread made me hungry. Hungry for Cow Tails. Damn.

My answer is: it depends on the user, rather than on the indexer. But that's my answer for everything.

Prove that objective reality exists is what I'm saying. It does deny that leg exists without someone saying it, or at least thinking it. Directly observing it is different: you are describing it with your senses. But once it is outside the range of your observation, whether or not a thing exists doesn't matter until you think it does (which requires an encoded signifier within your brain) or someone else says it does (which requires a phonetic signifier). If your brain doesn't encode it and no one says it, whether or not it exists doesn't matter and you can't prove that it does.

I'd say the tree still makes a sound.

Moreover, once again, quantum physics says it doesn't exist anyways.

Again, the meaning of 'exist' would need to be defined.

'Does this chair exist' is different to 'Does free will exist'.
Aye, that's what I'm harking at.


If there are no humans (and presumably no other intelligent creature floating about) it wouldn't matter whether or not the moon was roughly spherical because there wouldn't be anyone around to call it roughly spherical.
I assume you'd agree with me, in an everyday conversation away from philosophy or linguistics, that it is a fact that the moon is spherical (by which I mean, henceforth, roughly spherical)?

If there suddenly were no English speakers in the universe, would this fact cease to be also? If an English speaker popped into existence 1000 years later, would the fact be a fact once more? Would there be a gap of 1000 years when the English-language statement 'the moon is spherical' wasn't a fact?

Tails aren't legs, they're extensions of the spine. Limbs tend to have a specific structure in an animal and the tail has a different structure.

Also, if we look at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leg

A leg is a limb on an living thing's body that supports the rest of the animal above the ground between the ankle and the hip and is used for locomotion.

Since a cow's tail does not help support the cow and is not used for locomotion, nor does it have an ankle, it is not a leg.

Also, if we look at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leg

I think you're missing the point.

How many cows again?

Also, what the hell are you doing up Chumbly! I'm the only person that visits NSG at this hour. :p I've just got back from work, what's your excuse. :)

Since a cow's tail does not help support the cow and is not used for locomotion, nor does it have an ankle, it is not a leg.

I suspect legs and chairs are a slight deviance from the point.

Could we so accurately describe 'government' for example and is government changed by our evolving understanding of the word?

At what point is language inextricably tied up with the concept?

How many cows again?
Seven; but only three of them are hypothetical.


Also, what the hell are you doing up Chumbly! I'm the only person that visits NSG at this hour. :p I've just got back from work, what's your excuse. :)
I'm drunk.

:P

But you have a point, I must retire. I'll check up on this the morn.

I'm drunk.

I, on the other hand, am about to go to lunch.

Where you say 'it's late', I could say that is objectively not true, but we both understand your meaning.

*goes to eat lunch*

I think you're missing the point.
What point? The "point" that there's no difference in bone/muscle structure or usage between the things that dangle off a cow? Why not start literally calling penises legs? Or teats (on a cow) as well? Then female cows would have, what, nine legs and male cows would have six.

I suspect legs and chairs are a slight deviance from the point.

Could we so accurately describe 'government' for example and is government changed by our evolving understanding of the word?

At what point is language inextricably tied up with the concept?

At all points.

However, language is determined by consensus. If everyone decided to agree to redefine government to refer to the waste matter produced by defecation, not just explicitly by holding a conference or something but also implicitly by continually using it in that definition, the meaning of the word would indeed change. The concepts we currently associate with 'government' would be given a different name.

The only problem is getting everyone to agree like that. Generally it takes centuries.

I suspect legs and chairs are a slight deviance from the point.

Could we so accurately describe 'government' for example and is government changed by our evolving understanding of the word?

At what point is language inextricably tied up with the concept?
Well, a chair's legs still support it.

What point? The "point" that there's no difference in bone/muscle structure or usage between the things that dangle off a cow? Why not start literally calling penises legs? Or teats (on a cow) as well? Then female cows would have, what, nine legs and male cows would have six.

I believe that Chumbly isn't actually trying to say that a tail is leg the way the English language defines it.

Seven; but only three of them are hypothetical.



I'm drunk.

Ah. Well, if three are hypothetical then it is a trick question and you've been counting udders which are sometimes tails but never legs. Impossible to determine.

I believe that Chumbly isn't actually trying to say that a tail is leg the way the English language defines it.

Well, I'm just saying that if a tail is a leg, why aren't teats or penises? They're all pieces dangling from a cow's torso.

Hell, why stick to torsos or things that dangle down? Cows have horns and ears.

Tails aren't legs, they're extensions of the spine. Limbs tend to have a specific structure in an animal and the tail has a different structure.

Well, let's say the word 'leg' was redefined to cover both what we currently perceive as 'legs' and what we currently perceive as 'tails'. How many legs would the cow have then?

That is the question.

I believe the answer is five if you do subscribe to the new definition, and four if you do not. That's about it.

Well, let's say the word 'leg' was redefined to cover both what we currently perceive as 'legs' and what we currently perceive as 'tails'. How many legs would the cow have then?

That is the question.

I believe the answer is five if you do subscribe to the new definition, and four if you do not. That's about it.
Yes, but why would the definition be changed? The tail and the legs do not serve the same purpose in a cow and are only alike in that they dangle downwards.

Yes, but why would the definition be changed? The tail and the legs do not serve the same purpose in a cow and are only alike in that they dangle downwards.

No idea why. The premise of the thread, however, is that somehow, for some reason, the definition was changed to include two different body parts serving completely different functions.

Or maybe it suggests that the definition of the word 'leg' has changed to mean what we formerly thought of as 'tail', and therefore, cows have one leg. I'm not entirely sure, but I still like the idea of referring to the things it stands on as 'hoofstalks'.

No idea why. The premise of the thread, however, is that somehow, for some reason, the definition was changed to include two different body parts serving completely different functions.

Or maybe it suggests that the definition of the word 'leg' has changed to mean what we formerly thought of as 'tail', and therefore, cows have one leg. I'm not entirely sure, but I still like the idea of referring to the things it stands on as 'hoofstalks'.

But then what about our legs... footstalks?

But then what about our legs... footstalks?

We have two footstalks, and no legs. Although we do have a leg-bone at the base of our pelvis, presumably where a leg once was before evolution made it fall off when we descended from the tall brown-and-green things.

We have two footstalks, and no legs. Although we do have a leg-bone at the base of our pelvis, presumably where a leg once was before evolution made it fall off when we descended from the tall brown-and-green things.
But we're more closely related to cows than we are to the tall brown and green things and cows have a leg...?

Current theory has it that we used to have a leg (like cows do) but now no longer do. The tall brown-and-green things don't have legs either, but they're very different: while we and cows are fish, the tall brown-and-green things are birds -- completely different kingdom, you know. *nod* It's no surprise we share more of our DNA with the cows despite them having four hoofstalks and a leg.

I think I'll be going to bed before I can perpetuate this silliness further.

Ah, roses and other names etc. It's very vaguely a matter of semantics, but if you went around claiming your cows have five legs a vet would in fact be called.

I assume you'd agree with me, in an everyday conversation away from philosophy or linguistics, that it is a fact that the moon is spherical (by which I mean, henceforth, roughly spherical)?

If there suddenly were no English speakers in the universe, would this fact cease to be also? If an English speaker popped into existence 1000 years later, would the fact be a fact once more? Would there be a gap of 1000 years when the English-language statement 'the moon is spherical' wasn't a fact?

If there were no English speakers and aliens were looking at the moon they would call it marklar or melllvar or something in alienese, which is roughly equivalent to "spherical". So the moon wouldn't be spherical so much as melllvar and the aliens would call it melllvar and no one would think about whether or not it was spherical. The point is, they have their own signifier which contextualizes the concept of spherical to them.
If an English speaker popped into existence 1000 years after humanity (or English) ceased to exist, whether or not he would call the moon "spherical" would rest on whether or not he thought it could be described by the word "spherical".

I'd say the tree still makes a sound.

How do you know? Can you prove it does? Can you prove to me that it does, even if you were there and heard it, but I didn't?

Again, the meaning of 'exist' would need to be defined.

Collapsing wave functions and probability and so on. There is a probability that anything you're not observing exists, but only a probability until you actually observe it.


Also, why is there a difference between "natural" words like legs and cows and "constructed" words like government and currency? All words are arbitrary artificial constructs created by humans and applied arbitrarily to concepts we observe or experience. The only exception to this is onomatopoeia, which is just an attempt to recreate a natural with human speech. As soon as it changes from a similar noise into a signifier assigned to that noise, it becomes a part of the artificial system, though, since the spoken signifier noise is not actually the noise it's describing.
Case in point: when children have just learned to speak they put everything into the few categories they know. If you call the big thing in the living room with four legs and a tail a "dog", a child is likely to see a cow and call it a dog, too, since it has four legs and a tail. And that categorization isn't wrong since the signifier "dog" means - to the child - any large animal with four legs and a tail. It is only after someone corrects them that they reassign "dog" to be more specific. The point is that the categorization of things is purely arbitrary and artificial. The very categorization of one thing as natural and the other as artificial is an artificial, arbitrary categorization according to how we perceive the world. Another person may view the concepts differently and so assign the signifiers differently, which isn't wrong until they can't communicate their ideas to you because they are unable to put their ideas into a common context.

What if the cow itself said it has five legs? Does it then have four or five? And would it be impolite to call the cow four-legged when it clearly identifies as being five-legged?

What if the cow itself said it has five legs? Does it then have four or five? And would it be impolite to call the cow four-legged when it clearly identifies as being five-legged?

You bring up something I feel should put us all to shame: What does the cow think?

If there were no English speakers and aliens were looking at the moon they would call it marklar or melllvar or something in alienese, which is roughly equivalent to "spherical". So the moon wouldn't be spherical so much as melllvar and the aliens would call it melllvar and no one would think about whether or not it was spherical.
See, I'd disagree.

I'd argue that the Moon was spherical, that it was 'that thing by which English language speakers refer to as spherical', with or without any English language speakers to understand such a signifier, noting that 'spherical' is still an English signifier.

Also, why is there a difference between "natural" words like legs and cows and "constructed" words like government and currency?
It's not the word I'm interested in, but the thing that the word id referring to. The leg, no matter what it is signified as, is still a mind-independent thing, still a part of the external world.

I'm not so sure about things like government or private property.

If I ask you how many legs a (normal, unharmed) cow has, but say to you that I'm counting it's tail as a 'leg', what would you say?
4 legs and one tail. even if YOU count the tail as a leg, I'm not.

same as pluto. Is it still a planet even tho some scientists say it isn't?

If I call it's tail a leg, does that make it a leg, other than semantically? you're not calling the tail a leg, you're counting the tail as a leg.

5 if female 6 if male.
err... would't that be 9 if female? :p

It's not the word I'm interested in, but the thing that the word id referring to. The leg, no matter what it is signified as, is still a mind-independent thing, still a part of the external world.

i think you need more than just a mind-independent part of the external world. you need something like natural kinds/categories. after all, the group of things we normally call legs and tails exist 'out there', but it isn't clear that they inherently go together the same way just legs alone do.

See, I'd disagree.

I'd argue that the Moon was spherical, that it was 'that thing by which English language speakers refer to as spherical', with or without any English language speakers to understand such a signifier, noting that 'spherical' is still an English signifier.

I'm not disagreeing. It may very well be that the moon exists and is spherical regardless of whether or not someone is signifying it as such. The point I'm making is that it doesn't matter whether or not the moon is spherical regardless of whether or not someone is signifying it as such because no one is around to signify it as such or not.

It's not the word I'm interested in, but the thing that the word id referring to. The leg, no matter what it is signified as, is still a mind-independent thing, still a part of the external world.

I'm not so sure about things like government or private property.

Why is government different? If you didn't exist, would government cease to exist? If no intelligent being existed, would the possibility of a government cease to exist? A government assumes that intelligent beings exist to create it, so that intelligent beings exist is a part of the concept that "government" signifies. So, to restate my question more accurately but more complicatedly: If no intelligent thing existed, would the statement "If intelligent creatures existed they could organize themselves such that one or more or fewer are in charge of or responsible for the rest" be untrue?

Why is government different? If you didn't exist, would government cease to exist?
I think there is a difference there, in the sense that I think the moon will be spherical, (normal) cows will have four legs, even if there is no human around to describe them as such (they are, as FS says, natural kinds), but that things like private property, government, etc., would not exist if humans popped out of existence; for they are not natural kinds.

The hard questions arise when we think of borderline cases. Take JuNii's example of Pluto. I'd be inclined to say that a planet was a natural kind, but the 'downgrading' of Pluto seems to counteract this.

Do realists about natural kinds become relativists/constructivists about non-natural kinds?

So, to restate my question more accurately but more complicatedly: If there were no intelligent thing existed, would the statement "If intelligent creatures existed they could organize themselves such that one or more or fewer are in charge of or responsible for the rest" be untrue?
I'm not sure of my answer to this.

It's a stumper.

"Four legs good, Five legs bad!"

"The cow is a Deviation!"


Do I exist as a real person just because my signifier and 'my' words appear on this forum?

I could be just a robot. Or an evil 5-legged cow.

You bring up something I feel should put us all to shame: What does the cow think?

I read this thread after talking in the one titled Pre-op Transsexual (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=585631), in which some people made "thinking you're female doesn't make you female" type arguments. I found the similarity to this thread, in which people say "calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg", amusing.

I think there is a difference there, in the sense that I think the moon will be spherical, (normal) cows will have four legs, even if there is no human around to describe them as such (they are, as FS says, natural kinds), but that things like private property, government, etc., would not exist if humans popped out of existence; for they are not natural kinds.

The hard questions arise when we think of borderline cases. Take JuNii's example of Pluto. I'd be inclined to say that a planet was a natural kind, but the 'downgrading' of Pluto seems to counteract this.

Do realists about natural kinds become relativists/constructivists about non-natural kinds?

Categorizing things as natural kinds is an artificial "unnatural" kind. To be clearer but more complicated (as is my tendency): without intelligent beings, no one would be around to categorize things as natural kinds or not, so that categorization is just as artificial as the concept of a government.


I'm not sure of my answer to this.

It's a stumper.

It's why I asked it.

I also just realized how much I screwed up the grammar in the question.

Categorizing things as natural kinds is an artificial "unnatural" kind. To be clearer but more complicated (as is my tendency): without intelligent beings, no one would be around to categorize things as natural kinds or not, so that categorization is just as artificial as the concept of a government.

does hydrogen exist if there are no intelligent beings to classify it as such?

does hydrogen exist if there are no intelligent beings to classify it as such?

You're asking the wrong person. My answer throughout the thread has been "It doesn't matter."

You're asking the wrong person. My answer throughout the thread has been "It doesn't matter."
Shame, because that's the question I want to discuss.

And, incidentally, I think it does matter.

I read this thread after talking in the one titled Pre-op Transsexual (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=585631), in which some people made "thinking you're female doesn't make you female" type arguments. I found the similarity to this thread, in which people say "calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg", amusing.
Maybe the cow identifies as a bull?

Shame, because that's the question I want to discuss.

And, incidentally, I think it does matter.

Why does it matter?

Why does it matter?

because it is worthwhile to figure out what exists, presumably. besides, your previous claim sort of implied not that it doesn't matter, but that there is no such thing as hydrogen.

Why does it matter?
Firstly, as FS bluntly says, it's good to know what exists or not.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, our position on this subject influences how we see the world. Many of the humanities, especially sociology, literary studies, etc., are dominated by constructivist accounts; indeed, the whole postmodern project is one big constructivist barn dance.

A mind-dependent, relativist universe is a hell of a lot different to a mind-independent, realist one.

Firstly, as FS bluntly says, it's good to know what exists or not.

Why is it good to know? And anyways, how do you know you know?

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, our position on this subject influences how we see the world. Many of the humanities, especially sociology, literary studies, etc., are dominated by constructivist accounts; indeed, the whole postmodern project is one big constructivist barn dance.

A mind-dependent, relativist universe is a hell of a lot different to a mind-independent, realist one.

Yes, but I'm neither. It really doesn't make a difference to me: if it's contextualized in language, I treat it as real. If it's not, I can't treat it as real or not because I don't know about it.

Why is it good to know?
Because it'll determine a lot of the ways we approach the world.

And anyways, how do you know you know?
'Know' was the wrong word; 'take to be the truth' would be better.

Yes, but I'm neither. It really doesn't make a difference to me: if it's contextualized in language, I treat it as real. If it's not, I can't treat it as real or not because I don't know about it.
But the nature of your contextualisation changes drastically, surely?

For example, there's a big difference in the descriptor 'leg' which is taken to mean 'limb on an organism's body which supports and moves the organism, and which exists in a mind-independent world' and the descriptor 'leg' which is taken to mean 'the descriptor which, to me, indicates the mind-dependent limb on an organism's body which supports and moves the organism'.

Because it'll determine a lot of the ways we approach the world.

Not really.

'Know' was the wrong word; 'take to be the truth' would be better.

Which still begs the question, why?

But the nature of your contextualisation changes drastically, surely?

For example, there's a big difference in the descriptor 'leg' which is taken to mean 'limb on an organism's body which supports and moves the organism, and which exists in a mind-independent world' and the descriptor 'leg' which is taken to mean 'the descriptor which, to me, indicates the mind-dependent limb on an organism's body which supports and moves the organism'.

It doesn't make a difference because the series of sounds l-e-g will always be an artificial, arbitrary signifier which has nothing to do with the cow or its leg.
And again, whether or not the leg exists when I'm not around to talk about it doesn't make any difference to me because if I'm around to talk about it, it exists (to me anyways, which is all that matters to me), and if I'm not around to talk about it, I'm not around to care about whether or not it exists.

It doesn't make a difference because the series of sounds l-e-g will always be an artificial, arbitrary signifier which has nothing to do with the cow or its leg.
And this is where we'd part ways; it's a constructivist position which I'd reject.

And this is where we'd part ways; it's a constructivist position which I'd reject.

How is the English word "leg" not artificial and arbitrary? Regardless of whether or not the concept that "leg" signifies is, the word definitely is. This is easily proven by your own original question: you can call a tail a leg. It doesn't mean that it's a limb the cow uses to move and stand, but it does mean you're calling it a leg, and if everyone accepted the label "leg" to apply to a tail no one would be arguing the point now.

How is the English word "leg" not artificial and arbitrary?
It's not that which I (particularly) object to, it's what you said the signifier having "nothing to do with the cow or its leg" that I disagree with.