On ''what there is''

snilf, I am the class idiot. Over there is a raging fire. Stick you hand in it and tell me if it is real or not. 

There are all kinds of rules. So ''there are rules''. Are those ''normative'' in the sense of prescribing certain  behaviour?
Are rules ''truth -functional''? That is can't they be true or false?
Can terms or concepts be true or false or are those only
some ''special kinds of sentences or statements''? There are
different kinds of rules in different ''cultures'' or countries, So
they are obviously not universal . Who determines  their
boundaries? I got all kinds of reprimands regarding implicit
stated rules. Those then are assumed to be ''natural''? Are
people programmed with them  together with native language
and its grammar which is also ''loaded'' with rules? Can all
statements be put in '' s is P'' (subject IS predicate) sentence
form? In this thread we see this ''grammar form'' as ,uh, a
rule. Some of the members  even told me that ''Croat''- and
''Serbian language '' are not the same. Probably because
of some rule of his own. How many English languages are
only in England ? How many in Germany or Holland? I can
hear difference between Dutch dialects . What are the differences
between programmed computers and programmed people?

mijostyn: yes, the fire burns if I put my hand in it. But—as Descartes already pointed out—the sensation of "burning" is not "in" the fire but in me, the experiencer. Is fire "hot"? Well, that's the word we use in English to identify the sensation associated with fire. But do you suppose that "hotness" is a property of fire? That would be to mistake the experience of the thing with the thing itself.

Nor is the "hotness" of fire merely the excitation of electrons in its sub-atomic structure. That description merely substitutes one experience for another. It's like saying that sound is really just wave motion in the air. Schopenhauer points out that a deaf person will not grasp what sound is by viewing Chladni's traces.

"Hotness" is a subjective experience. Again, to paraphrase Descartes, if I come near the fire, I feel a pleasurable sensation of warmth; if I come too near, that pleasurable sensation turns to pain. But those sensations are not in the fire!

As for whether or not "Serbian" and "Croatian" are just different dialects of the "same" language...that's a dull topic for anyone not intimately concerned with those languages. And, of course, politics—and history—are relevant here. South Slav identity is a fraught business.

What are the differences
between programmed computers and programmed people?

Enormous....

Infinite difference to say it clearly...

Machine cannot choose to be programmed by this or those person, they could never either choose the program content...A man choose the programmer and the program content , if he cannot choose his country or his family he can also reprogram himself or chose an other "father" or an other "language"...

We can "program" ourself or saying it in a better way, we may reorient our attention and consciousness to perceive WHOLE and INTERNAL TOTALITY not only external one and external parts...

This is the "natural" pathway.....Goethe call the perception of the whole : Truth or Beauty...Or Nature...

Goethe would have never fall for the transhumanist tactic to erase nature or to blur the distinction between artificial and natural....What we see behind the world actual crisis if you pay attention....

Can all
statements be put in ’’ s is P’’ (subject IS predicate) sentence
form?

It depend of what you call a statement precisely ... your definition of statement mimic a procustean bed...And procustean method is a bad joke for sure not a method....but you already know that no?

But language is deeper than proposition statement or logical calculus...Language convey and express multidimensional human experiences...

Read about metaphors....You will learn that you have never understood what a metaphor is ever...It is normal, metaphor processing reflect the deeper mechanism of the mind... ALL LANGUAGE IS METAPHORICAL STRATA...Not propositional strata at all, save at the mere surface...

Read about creative imagination and perception...


I will propose an exercise for you:

Read about the limit and power of language in apophatic and cataphatic Theology East and west , after that think about the deep Cantorian analogy between the idea of set and the way it relate to Spiritual Theology for example, if you want to practice language power of expression and limitations....

And if you think all i just said is superficial read what Kurt Goedel has to say about it....And say to him if you dare that he is a bad reader of Frege and Quine....😁

You can also practice the "yoga" of attention by reading the Goethe treatise about plant...

I will let you choose what stir your pot the best, numbers, geometry or living organism...

You could also pick acoustic and think how to figure out for yourself how the   sound "lives" in your own  particular room....Experiencing then not dead equations through a computer  but miraculous physico-psychical phenomena... Not S is P but living metaphor call "music".... 

In all these contemplation proposition S is P is useless...


I recommend to make the matter straight the 2 greatest books about mathematical creativity and spiritual experience ever written :

Alexander Grothendieck : "The key of dreams" and "Harvests and sowings", 2,000 pages long... No trace of Frege here or Quine... 😁i read them...

I suppose that you know already that Grothendieck is a genius only in the same league of the like of Poincaré and Ramanujan.... Not many other one...

But these books exist only in french it is the catch....😁😊

''The logic'' of reactions to my thread. I started this thread
with a kind of introduction to ''what there is'' in general and
limited the extension to ''what analog component there are''
in particular cartridges. I even named Raul and chakster
as example of  worthwhile contributors. But there was not
one single reaction about ''what cartridges there are'' but
the most were critical remarks about my philosophical 
''content''. However my reactions were only reactions to
reaction of the members. Who then should be blamed?