Schroder sq and the new talea

Dear Dertonarm, As I stated before I am realy astonished
with the extension of your eloquence. As you stated elswhere you consider your self to be 'a child of enlightment'. Ie the dream regarding homo universalis. I have never 'met'a better example. But I noticed this. In the çontext of áudio system you are able to relate tonearm,
cart,TT, amps.and speakers. This is obviously RELATIONAL
issue. Correlation of those, say, different parts is the
same. But when you are talking about ,uh, philosophy you
are using only concepts. There are limitations on what you
can do with concepts. So no wonder we get 'adding up' on
qualitys. Add éssence befor the word object then inherent
or éxtraherent qualitys and even the values. Those are morphems wich you can add as you please with the illusion ofsome 'extra meaning'. Read any philosopher you like about
essence and you will get 10 of them while 'the essence' is
supposed to be one. Now I mentioned Freges invention to deal with cocepts as function with one argument and relations as function with two or more arguments.There is a
theory of relations so we can talk about relations in relational terms. But the 'subject predicate' sentence form
is not suitable for relations. The most peaople 'see' (sic)
some 'name' in the subject place and provide or add up
predicates to the (pre)suposed name. So 'the Germans are
defeated by Stalingrad by the Russians' seems to be about
Germans but 'the Russian defeated the Germans by Stalingrad' express, as Frege would say, the same thought.
The most strange construction is when people put some quantifier in the subject place. Thy then think that those
are also names with refering function. But then why complain with: 'someone has stollen my car?' If this quantifier is a name with refering function you should be able to find this person.
Asa thinks obviously that 'not','nothing',etc is some kind of philosophical concept. One with some very important meaning that is probable only available to him,
Heidegger, and some. But this is ,uh, a ordinary quantifier
that should be treated as (universal) quantifier 'all'.
Ie: there is no object that satisfied conditions Fx and Gx.

Regards,

Here is what Wikipedia has to say about "billion". But I must say you caught me out on this one; I had never heard of the "long scale", perhaps because I was educated entirely in the US. In any case, Wikipedia (an American invention, I admit) claims that the long scale is passe'.

"The long and short scales are two of several different large number naming systems used throughout the world for integer powers of ten (10).[1] Many countries, including most in continental Europe, use the long scale whereas most English-speaking countries use the short scale. In all such countries, the number names are translated into the local language, but retain a name similarity due to shared etymology. Some languages, particularly in East Asia, have large number naming systems that are different from the long and short scales.
Long scale is the English translation of the French term échelle longue. It refers to a system of large number names in which every new term greater than million is 1,000,000 times the previous term: billion means a million millions (1012), trillion means a million billions (1018), and so on.
Short scale is the English translation of the French term échelle courte. It refers to a system of large number names in which every new term greater than million is 1,000 times the previous term: billion means a thousand millions (109), trillion means a thousand billions (1012), and so on.
Up to, but excluding, a thousand million (< 109), the two scales are identical. At and above a thousand million (≥ 109), the two scales diverge by using the same words for different number values. These false friends[2] can be a source of misunderstanding.
For most of the 19th and 20th centuries, the United Kingdom uniformly used the long scale,[3] while the United States of America used the short scale,[3] so that usage of the two systems was often referred to as British and American respectively. In 1974, the government of the UK switched to the short scale, a change that is reflected in its mass media and official usage.[4][5][6][7] Although some residual usage of the long scale continues in the UK,[8] the phrases British usage and American usage are no longer accurate nor helpful characterisations.
Usage of the two systems can be a subject of controversy. Differences in opinion as to which system should be used can evoke resentment between adherents, while national differences of any kind can acquire jingoistic overtones.[9]

Asa, Have you ever observed the course of a progressive dementia in a person you knew well at his or her intellectual baseline? If you had done so, or if you ever have to do so, you will see that yes, the physical brain, "your brain - the material matter - is you", even though there is no physiological map for the conscious mind. We all would like to think otherwise.

Dertonearm, Now that I think more about it, I seem to recall that I did once encounter the "long scale" of big numbers, but since it was useless information in relation to my need to make scientific calculations, I must have shoved it off into some inaccessible corner of my memory.

Now your questin:'what are you when you are not thinking?'
You deed not stated as your premisse: Cogito ergo sum.
To make you question managable for my way of,uh, seeing
I must rephrase your question. Say: in what state is your
brain when you are not thinking?
Well I assume that this is the case when I and my brain are
sleeping.There may be some dreaming activity but I dare not
to mention Freud and his Traumdeutung.

The assumption is incorrect.

Consciousness has nothing to do with thought; as soon as you achieve a state of consciousness without thought, it can be said that you are super-conscious: Present, in the now, in a state of Being. The idea of thought being the Being is incorrect- it comes out of the mind trying to convince you that it is you. It is not- it is a tool for you.

This is the difference between philosophy and knowledge. 'Cognito ergo sum' is philosophy, a statement to explain behavior, misleading.. certainly not real. Knowing that your consciousness exists in a state of true Being when thought is silenced is actual knowledge.

Asa, Thanks to Lew I need not to state my 'materialistic'
conviction. I am 'physicalist' all the way .Ie all events
are physical and we are hoping to be able to reduce all
sciences to physical terms. So in this sence even 'semanticalisam' is a provisional state because of lack of better. What I like to address is your talk about
'linquistic decomposition'. You are obviously not familiar
with 'compositionality principle' as introduced by Frege.
A sentence is a composed whole such that every expression
in a sentence contributes to the meaning of the whole sentence. The analysis of a sentence may involve 'decomposition' but this is only for the sake of
analysis: trying to stipulate wich 'part' play which function in the whole sentence.
Now : 'cogito ergo sum' is not my conviction but I attributed this to you as your possible premisse. One can easely 'deduce' from there the conclusion 'I am not' when
not thinking. The problem is 'I am not' is not a sentence
or not completed sentence. Ie badly composed because this sentence lack 'some parts' and consequently has no complete
meaning. Say like 'x + 4'. As long as we have not put some
number in the 'marker' x this expression has no sence nor
reference. So producing some bewildering 'meánings' from
the word 'not' and constructing 'nothingnees' as adding
up to the presuppoosed meaning has nothing to do with semantics or linquistic theory but illustrates the lack of
needed knowledge. Stating the same in a question statement:
how can one discuss quantification theory with a person
who has never heard about quantification?

Regards,